Ordered,
	That Sir George Young be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Oliver Heald be added.—( Mr. McAvoy, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

The Secretary of State was asked—

Meg Hillier: I refer to my earlier point. It is a simple maths lesson, in a sense. If more science is proposed, more experiments are likely to come before the animals scientific procedures division to see whether it is acceptable to carry out those experiments. At all times the Home Office inspectorate looks very carefully at the suggestions put forward, ensuring that only experiments that can be done only on animals are agreed. If not, alternatives have to be used. We have also invested an awful lot of money in the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research—NC3Rs—to reduce the use of animals in experiments, but more science in the global context is something that we should welcome, even if it sometimes leads to perverse outcomes, as in this case.

Alan Campbell: The £5 million small retailers capital grants fund will help secure small independent retail shops in areas that are at most risk of crime. There are no plans to extend the scheme, but other aspects of the retail crime action plan are helping to tackle retail crime in every area.

John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware of the Federation of Small Businesses survey that found that crime against businesses costs small firms about £13,500 each? Although I am sure that the businesses within the 50 priority areas have taken up the opportunity with enthusiasm, I think it curious that they bear a remarkable similarity to a list of Labour local authorities. Why do not businesses in areas such as my constituency in Essex have the same opportunity to apply for help?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is very important that we support small businesses and prevent crime against them, but we have to back that up with a Forensic Science Service that can protect the public and ensure that crimes are solved. Why is the Minister overseeing a criminals charter through the closure of the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Chorley, leaving people to have to go from either Wetherby or Birmingham to parts of Cumbria to protect the public and ensure that crimes are solved? Will he reflect on it—

Mr. Speaker: Order— [ Interruption. ] I am not being very kind at all. When I say "Order", the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. We have had an enjoyable Cook's tour, but it is time for the answer.

Tony Baldry: How can any of us have any confidence that the UK Border Agency is fit for purpose? I had at my constituency surgery on Friday someone who lives in my constituency and who has been waiting for nine years for the UK Border Agency and its predecessors simply to process his first application for consideration as a refugee. Am I the only person in the House who has completely lost the will to live in respect of the UK Border Agency having any competence to deal with work permits, asylum applications or anything else? This is an organisation—

Phil Woolas: I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers. If he wants to take the views of someone with a political motivation, that is up to him, but I repeat that the Government have reintroduced border controls—electronic borders—despite opposition from the hon. Gentleman.

Alan Johnson: Going back in history, the hon. Gentleman will find that it was a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who let these people in in the first place. Secondly, we are a functioning democracy that is very careful about the organisations we proscribe, which should be those that particularly and specifically refer to the use of violence to meet their aims. That level has not been reached. Organisations across the country—and Members of Parliament, actually—would look askance if we used the legislation to proscribe organisations that should not be proscribed under its terms. It is absolutely right that we do not give a gift to these radical organisations by using the proscribing legislation unwisely.

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend played a very distinctive role in formulating the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. It was absolutely essential that we brought together the various strands from across the Government to concentrate on these issues, and Charles Farr is leading the operation magnificently. My right hon. Friend is right to point to an aspect that is not often referred to—the race against time to find new methods of technology to thwart the increasing ingenuity of those who seek to destroy our society.

Alan Johnson: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Prevent has absolutely nothing to do with spying on communities; spying on communities has absolutely nothing to do with Prevent, full stop. The article carried in one national newspaper, not picked up elsewhere, refers to two areas—Waltham Forest and Islington—which we are looking at very closely. We can find no evidence that there is any substance in those allegations.
	I agree that if Prevent were used to spy on communities, it would be worthless. However, many people from those communities would come to this Dispatch Box and speak up for the policy if they could. Guidance, which is very strictly adhered to, ensures that there is the necessary proportionate response and that any use of Prevent is in accordance with the guidelines that we publish.

Crispin Blunt: In 2007, the Government announced an increase of more than £100 million on Prevent and another £240 million on counter-terrorism policing, among an overall counter-terrorist, security and intelligence expenditure of £3.5 billion, which has rapidly increased. What are the Government doing to review the effectiveness of all that expenditure, as well as the Prevent programmes, some of which critics believe have been counter-productive?

Alan Johnson: We review the programme all the time, and various committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, call us to account. It is right that the Opposition Front Benchers should also call us to account, but although many people attack Prevent as being counter-productive, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who would be entitled on Privy Council terms to know exactly what is being done under Prevent and the whole Contest counter-terrorism strategy, do not believe that.
	Certainly Prevent would be counter-productive if the newspaper story that was carried in one national paper a couple of weeks ago were true. It is not—we can find no evidence of that. Misrepresenting Prevent and exaggerating issues under it is one thing, but we as calm and rational politicians should ensure that we keep to this important part of the strategy. Preventing young people from becoming radicalised is probably the most crucial part of our whole strategy.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary agree to meet me to discuss the Islington experience, since he has just referred to it in answer to a previous question? May I invite him to read the report produced by the Institute of Race Relations called "Spooked!—How not to prevent violent extremism", by Arun Kundnani? It is an interesting report and will show him that other aspects of the Prevent agenda are effectively stigmatising an entire community.

Alan Johnson: The answer to the first question is yes—of course either I or a member of my ministerial team will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter. Secondly, he points to one particular contribution to this debate, of which there are many. It is a valuable one, but it is not in isolation and many other reports have made points contrary to the ones in that report.

Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Gentleman thank Essex police for putting more beat bobbies in Castle Point? We need them to counter disgraceful behaviour by youths around a new school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties that has been placed on Canvey Island, which is causing residents and businesses absolute mayhem. Does he agree that EBD schools should be located very carefully within communities? This one should certainly have been moved to central Essex—

Alan Johnson: A number of things, but what I said on 19 October is that just as the policing pledge gives a certain confidence to the public that they will get a standard of service wherever they live, given that there are 42 different police authorities—43 if we count the transport police—so we should also have a certain consistency of treatment right across the country on antisocial behaviour. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and I have asked the crime and reduction partnerships to ensure that that is the case over the coming months. With that and other measures, we can ensure that the public, no matter where they live, have an expectation of a certain level of service.

Stewart Jackson: Why are Members of Parliament routinely sent letters by the Border and Immigration Agency advising them in respect of individuals applying for asylum and indefinite leave to remain that those cases will not be resolved until July 2011? Is not that a sign of a failing and dysfunctional Department, or as we heard earlier, is that the policy of this Government—

Phil Woolas: I do not accept the premise of the question. We have been able to make the change because of the significant drop overall in the numbers of asylum applications, from 57,570 in 2002 to 23,210 in 2008. As we bring forward renewed applications with further information, we are requiring those people to have face-to-face interviews in Liverpool. I would imagine that the hon. Gentleman supports that policy. The impact on Croydon, which is provided with £30 million a year for children, will be minimal as a result of those background facts.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman calls for the Government to manage the migration system, but he then opposes the very measures that we have introduced— such as the comprehensive electronic borders—to do so. The cases that he has mentioned—cases, not people—are being got through apace. As I have said, the record of this Government in deciding those cases shows that 60 per cent. are decided in six months, as opposed to 22 months in 1997. Who has got their priorities right?

David Hanson: The Government have allocated £415,000 to Wirral since 2008 to fund intensive packages of activities to reduce youth offending.

David Hanson: As will happen, there are occasions when people complete their sentences and are released back into the community. It is our job to ensure that we manage those individuals safely in the community. The hon. Gentleman will know that the probation services across the country, along with our colleagues in the Home Office, are determined to manage that risk effectively. We are doing so, and we have put in extra resources to manage it—in the prisons and the probation service—through the National Offender Management Service and the Home Office. Unfortunately, however, people do sometimes complete their sentences.

Alan Johnson: I believe that the legislation introduced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport some years ago on the back of a Labour private Member's Bill has had an extraordinary effect. In fact, the personal experience of my constituents—and, indeed, my own personal experience—suggests that the problems that used to be associated with fireworks weeks and sometimes months before firework day have gone down to a very small number. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that antisocial behaviour legislation can be used in this respect, however. The powers are there to be used, and all my experience tells me that they are being used very effectively.

Alan Campbell: The reality is that the numbers fluctuate, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which is that this is a very serious issue. That is why we are working with the industry, the trade unions and the police to do everything we can to tackle the problem of cash-in and vehicle crime. We are working to design out crime to make it more difficult for people to break into the vans and to ensure that banks are better equipped to deal with any incidents. We are working hard to resolve traffic problems, particularly around parking—leaving the vans parked away from the places they are delivering to. We are also working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the sentencing fits the crime.

Alan Johnson: First, I do not accept the premise that an ASBO is a badge of honour. This phrase came from a Youth Justice Board study into a tiny number—124—of cases and has never been supported by any other evidence. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to the police, who are the people who know about this, they would point out that if young people wanted ASBOs as a badge of honour, why would they go to such extraordinary lengths to avoid them?

Alan Johnson: I do not accept that, and I do not know why Liberal Democrat Members jump to that conclusion. The police are doing their job effectively. There was an issue around the G7 protest or the G20 protest—one of the protests—earlier this year that led the police to look again at some of their procedures. The result of those deliberations will be contained in the White Paper on policing, which will be published shortly.

Bill Rammell: I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is unable to come to the House as he is dealing with departmental business overseas.
	The Territorial Army makes a vital contribution to keeping our country safe, and 540 TA members are currently deployed on operations in Afghanistan. When we have forces in the front line putting their lives on the line for us, they must be the priority, and Afghanistan is the main effort for defence. It gets the first call on money, the first call on equipment, and the first call on training and support.
	More than £3 billion has been drawn from the Treasury reserve to support operations this year, but we need to reprioritise the core defence budget as well. That means that tough choices need to be made. Recruitment to the Army has experienced a significant boost this year—over 1,000 more recruits are expected to complete training than did so last year—but those additional recruits need to be paid for. The Chief of the General Staff presented proposals to help bring the budget into balance, and, as extra money cannot be drawn from the Treasury reserve for the purpose, the Army proposed to reduce the amount spent on the Territorial Army this year, as well as taking other measures.
	After discussion, the Secretary of State endorsed the approach taken by the Army. We did so while making it clear that we would not allow any risk to the Afghanistan campaign in the future to materialise. No TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and prepared, and pre-deployment training is emphatically not being cut.
	Our initial proposal was to suspend the remainder of non-deployment TA training in this financial year, with a saving of £20 million; but, as a Government, we do listen. The Secretary of State has therefore decided on a small adjustment to our original proposals to ensure continuity for those not immediately being deployed to Afghanistan, and to help retention. All TA personnel will now receive at least one training night per month in the current financial year. This measure reduces the in-year savings by £2.5 million.
	I realise that the reductions in normal activity are disappointing for TA members, but I believe that they will understand the reasons behind those reductions and the exceptional circumstances in which they are being applied. Tough choices cannot be made without consequences, so let me be clear. The media and the Opposition have been calling for more focus on current operations, but they cannot will the ends and then oppose the means. These measures are sensible, proportionate and will ensure that we make Afghanistan the main effort, and I hope they will be supported on both sides of the House.

Liam Fox: I would like to ask three simple questions. First, the Government have previously told us that they
	"always finance our military commitments overseas out of the reserve."—[ Official Report, 5 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1083.]
	Then the Secretary of State said last week:
	"We are adjusting the core defence budget to reprioritise Afghanistan".—[ Official Report, 15 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 469.]
	Some of us are surprised that it was not already the No.1 priority, but if it is fully funded from the reserve, as the Government say, why are they cutting the core TA budget by £43 million?
	Secondly, we know that, due to the recession and the major recruitment drive in the past year, there are more recruits in the regular Army than there is money to train them, and the Government have now demanded savings from other parts of the Army. Why did the Government not plan to fund their own target numbers for recruitment, especially in the middle of a war?
	Thirdly, do the Government really understand the ethos of volunteering or the effect their plans could have on future available numbers? For many, the TA is a habit; break the habit, break the TA. Pre-deployment training is only of use if we have the numbers to start with. Is it not the case that pre-deployment training is meant to augment, not supplant, routine TA training, so routine training is just as important as pre-deployment training? Whether or not an individual is deploying on operations, regular and routine training is required to ensure medium and long-term readiness in the TA for any future deployments to Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
	These proposals are a shambles. They must be reversed.

Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman knows full well how the reserve operates. Most of the cost of operations is met from the Treasury reserve, but the defence budget still meets some of the cost. Where activity would take place regardless of operations, the defence budget meets the cost even if the activity directly supports operational capability. That was the case under the last Government, and it is the case under this Government.
	The reality is that we face increased pressures this year, including due to increased numbers coming into the Army, which we welcome, as well as less income from estates disposal and as a result of exchange rate fluctuations. Reading between the lines of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I think that he actually welcomes the minor adjustment we have announced today. It is one that has been called for from those on the Opposition Benches. I also have to say that it ill behoves the Opposition—whom, let us remember, are not proposing one additional penny of expenditure within the defence budget—to urge us to prioritise efforts in Afghanistan and then to cry foul as soon as that leads to difficult decisions. That is dishonest and disingenuous, and it ill serves our TA.  [Interruption.]

Bruce George: I am not known to be hostile to the Government on defence, but I am very concerned about the Territorial Army, knowing its importance. Three hon. Members signed an early-day motion that is very modest in its aspirations, not over-the-top. What I would ask, despite having heard the explanation, is whether, even at this stage, such a small amount of money, which must be miniscule compared with the overall defence budget, can be looked at seriously again. Does this not send the wrong message? Are we not talking about the most effective element of our entire defence budget? Surely some other area could be plundered if necessary in the short term, instead of sending that erroneous, potentially damaging message—

Bill Rammell: I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, who has enormous experience in these areas. We have listened to the concerns and arguments that have been put forward, which is why we have made this minor adjustment—in response to those. However, on the overall argument, if we are to reprioritise our efforts to the front line in Afghanistan, there are no easy options in arriving at that conclusion. That is why we have taken the decisions we have. Nevertheless, we have listened to the arguments that have been put forward, and I think that when my right hon. Friend looks at the detail of what we are proposing, he will find some reassurance.

John Reid: I welcome my hon. Friend's adjustment. I fully agree with his requirement to prioritise, and I have full confidence in the Chief of the General Staff, General Richards. May I also therefore explain the problem that I have? If prioritisation is to be carried out and Afghanistan is essentially a conflict where we have to win the people—not just a conventional war against an army—then our greatest resource is people. I therefore believe that it would be right to keep his decisions under careful review. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), I would not like us to get into an intransigent position whereby we have taken a decision that we cannot back off, and then discover that it is having an effect on that reservoir of people on whom the armed forces defends, which includes the Territorial Army. I ask my hon. Friend please to keep the situation under review.

Bill Rammell: I agree with the underlying thrust of what my right hon. Friend is saying. There has been—I choose my words carefully—much debate in the public and media environment in recent months about Ministers taking advice from the military, and he is right to underline the fact that this proposal was put forward by the Chief of the General Staff and that we have, upon consideration, agreed with it. Nevertheless, on his point about careful review, we have not adopted an intransigent position, as evidenced by the adjustment we are making this afternoon. As with all decisions, we will keep this under active review.

Julian Brazier: We are looking forward to seeing the Minister at 5 o'clock. May I urge him to ask the Chief of the General Staff, in his next conversation with him, whether he is aware of the sacrifices that the families of Territorials make, and whether he would consider imposing such a percentage cut on the income of regular families in this way? Could I also ask—

George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the announcement of a £20 million reduction that was made has already caused a great deal of demoralisation within the TA? Does he further accept that today's announcement, although welcome, does not go far enough to overcome that demoralisation?

Angus Robertson: Ministry of Defence statistics show a £4.3 billion defence underspend in Scotland over recent years? Can the Minister tell us what the financial consequences of the current TA situation will be in Scotland?

Mark Lancaster: I welcome the announcement that the Minister has made. It is a small step in the right direction—I hope that by the end of the evening a few more steps in the right direction will have been taken. No member of the TA is to be deployed unless they have passed through the reserves training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell. That is currently a testing organisation, but as a result of this change, the RTMC will become a training organisation before deployment. At the moment, the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because some TA soldiers are being deployed at risk. I simply want his assurance that no more will be deployed at risk as a result of this decision.

Bill Rammell: I do pay tribute—I did so earlier—to the incredible work that the TA does on our behalf. Members of the TA who have deployed to Afghanistan—indeed, this applies to the 544 deployed there at the moment—will understand the necessity to prioritise towards our efforts there. For that reason, the measure will provide some support. We have also listened and made the adjustment that is being put forward this afternoon.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sorry for the Minister, who has become an apologist for a crass decision. The problem that we face is, as he quite rightly states, that we have to make tough and hard decisions. However, we should not make the wrong decision—and that is what we have seen. Will he reflect on what he has heard today, go back to the Secretary of State and put the budget back in place? Otherwise, we will have nobody left in the TA.

Bill Rammell: It simply is not accurate to say that we have underfunded the Afghan campaign. The expenditure from the reserve has risen from £700 million three years ago to more than £3 billion today. I am certainly not blaming the military for this decision—I was simply asserting that it is a fact that in the debate about how decisions are made, Ministers listened to the advice of the service chiefs, and this decision is in line with that advice. Nevertheless, the responsibility for the decision is mine and that of the Secretary of State.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to bring back to this House the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, after it has been considered for some time in the other place and in the Public Bill Committee.
	I begin by moving new clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and amendments 6, 7 and—

[Relevant documents: Report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, Session 2007-08, HC 552-I and —II, and the Government response, Cm 7422. Ninth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08, on the Draft Marine Bill: Coastal Access Provision, HC 656-I, and the Government response, Cm 7422.]
	 Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

'(1) The authority for an IFC district may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, enter into an agreement with an eligible body authorising the eligible body to perform any function of the IFC authority—
	(a) either in relation to the district or in relation to specified parts of that district;
	(b) subject to paragraph (a), either generally or in specified cases.
	"Specified" means specified in the agreement.
	(2) For the purposes of this section and sections [Eligible bodies], [Variation, review and cancellation of agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]], [Agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]: particular powers] and [Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]]—
	(a) any reference to a function of an IFC authority includes a reference to a function exercisable by a person authorised, appointed or employed by the IFC authority;
	(b) any reference to an agreement is to an agreement under this section.
	(3) The Secretary of State's approval may be given—
	(a) in relation to a particular agreement or in relation to a description of agreements;
	(b) unconditionally or subject to conditions specified in the approval.
	(4) An agreement under this section may not authorise an eligible body to perform any of the following functions—
	(a) any function whose performance by the body would be incompatible with the purposes for which the body was established;
	(b) functions under section 171 (accounts).
	(5) An agreement under this section does not prevent the IFC authority from performing a function to which the agreement relates.
	(6) The maximum period for which an agreement under this section may authorise an eligible body to perform a function is 20 years.'.— (Huw Irranca-Davies.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 3— Eligible bodies.
	Government new clause 4— Variation, review and cancellation of agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies].
	Government new clause 5— Agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]: particular powers.
	Government new clause 6— Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies].
	Government amendments 6 to 8
	Amendment 27, in clause 184, page 117, line 27, at end insert—
	'(2A) The provisions in sections [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies], [Eligible bodies], [Variation, review and cancellation of agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]], [Agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]: particular powers] and [Supplementary provisions with respect to agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]] shall apply to Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales.'.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall speak to new clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 5, and amendments 6 to 8.
	Part 6 will replace sea fisheries committees with inshore fisheries and conservation authorities—IFCAs—in England. These will have a duty to manage sea fisheries sustainably, balancing socio-economic benefits with protection of the marine environment. They will have more money and strengthened powers, while retaining local involvement in decision making. Under the current Bill model, IFCAs will lead on marine species management in the inshore area, including in estuaries. The Environment Agency will lead on protection for salmon, trout, other migratory species and freshwater fish in estuaries and as far out as the 6 nautical mile limit.
	As many hon. Members are aware, in January we launched a consultation on options for the number of future inshore fisheries and conservation districts. Following that consultation, I am happy to confirm that 10 IFC districts will be established, and the new IFCAs will be established with full powers and duties in April 2011. The Department will carry out more detailed consultation in 2010 to establish the exact landward and seaward boundaries of the new districts. I know that that announcement will be welcomed by all Members of the House.
	During a useful Commons Committee discussion on part 6, concerns were raised by a number of Members that the Bill as drafted did not provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the most joined-up inshore fisheries management, particularly in areas such as estuaries. In Committee, considerable pressure was exerted on us to amend the Bill so that IFCA functions can be delegated to the Environment Agency in particular, so that marine fisheries in estuaries could be managed in the most efficient way.
	To address this, we have tabled new clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and amendments 6, 7 and 8, which provide the option for IFCA functions to be delegated to the Environment Agency and to neighbouring IFCAs. An order-making power is provided to add to the list of eligible bodies so as to enable delegation to be made to other, named public bodies. Bodies can also be removed from the list.

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to have the Bill back on the Floor of the House. I hope that the constructive relationship that we have established across the House is maintained as we work towards introducing important legislation governing the future of our marine environment.
	New clauses 2 to 6 and amendments 6 and 8 relate to the delegation of functions by IFCAs to other eligible bodies. When this issue was raised in Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), the Minister committed to bringing something back on Report. The amendments will ensure that IFCAs are able to delegate elements of inshore fisheries management to other bodies. We believe that power over fisheries management needs to be returned to as local a level as possible. Fishermen, scientists and conservationists who work at the local level know how to manage our marine environment best and should be trusted with managing its future. We therefore see an important role for IFCAs in the future of fisheries management, but it is imperative that they represent the diverse range of interests that often play a role in our fisheries. The old sea fisheries committees that IFCAs will replace have, on occasion, been accused of being unrepresentative, especially of interests such as recreational angling. IFCAs must have a new, more representative membership.
	IFCAs will not always be best placed to carry out certain functions, some of which could be managed by other organisations or by agencies that have more relevant knowledge or are simply better placed to perform them. It is important that IFCAs are flexible and are able to delegate their functions where necessary or sensible, and we therefore support the proposed measures. It is crucial that the relationships between the Environment Agency and IFCAs, Natural England and the Marine Management Organisation are clear in the Bill.
	In Committee, we spoke about wanting to avoid a turf war. I apologise again for suggesting that it might be a surf war, and I promise not to suggest that IFCAs should be fit for porpoise; I shall try to keep the puns to an absolute minimum. How those organisations relate to each other is vital. Ultimately, it should be up to IFCAs—not, as the Minister says, to the Government or Government agencies—to decide how to devolve relevant powers to as local or relevant a level as possible. It should also be for IFCAs to decide where the correct balance of those powers lies. We are broadly supportive of the measures, and we look forward with interest to hearing what the amendment of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) reflects about the Welsh dimension to this issue.

Andrew George: I am pleased to have this opportunity to reflect on the Committee stage of the Bill. The debate has been very constructive across parties, and I congratulate both the Ministers who served on the Committee for the manner in which they discharged their duties. I look forward to hearing further constructive debate today.
	Turning to the Government amendments, I welcome the Minister's confirmation regarding the establishment of 10 IFCAs. As he knows, I have been campaigning for that for some time to reflect the significant local engagement that currently exists through the sea fisheries committees. That is something of such good quality and value that it would have been a great disappointment had the Government decided to go for the original proposal in the Bradley report, which was significantly to reduce the number of IFCAs compared with the current range of sea fisheries committees. I should declare an interest in the sense that two sea fisheries committees operate in my constituency—in west Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, with the latter having a distinct and important role in protecting not only marine conservation but a sustainable fishing industry in its own area, apart from that around mainland Cornwall.
	I would be grateful if the Minister would expand a little more on the make-up of the IFCAs, to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) referred. Who will sit on them, and how will marine conservation and commercial interests be balanced when they are first established? Given my intervention, the Minister will recognise that there are already good, well-established working relationships, certainly between the sea fisheries committees and, I would argue, between those committees and the Environment Agency. Many of those relationships work well because they are informal. He assured me that the amendments will not in any way curtail or discourage the informal arrangements that have already been established, and would no doubt continue to be established, between the eligible bodies, including the Environment Agency. However, it is important that the value of those arrangements, particularly in monitoring enforcement, should not be overlooked. For example, the vessel that is used in Cornwall, the Saint Piran, often undertakes work for the Devon sea fisheries committee, and goes to the Isles of Scilly as well. In fact, this summer the Secretary of State joined me on board the Saint Piran and saw its excellent work. The work of that vessel is largely governed by an informal arrangement between the sea fisheries committees. It would be a great pity if those informal agreements and arrangements were undermined by the terms of the amendments. I look forward to further reassurance from the Minister on that.
	Broadly speaking, the amendments assume that we are talking about agreements, not disagreements; indeed, they are about aiding and encouraging formal agreements between the eligible bodies. However, they do not foresee the possibility that there may be disagreements between bodies in areas that border each other, such as the upper estuaries, which the Minister described. Can he point me to elements of the amendments that might help to resolve any disagreements that arose? Similarly, he referred to the five-year review and the 20-year length of the agreements as set out in new clause 2. It would be helpful if the Minister explained a little more about why the Government have resolved to use those particular lengths of time. What would happen if a dispute between organisations that had established formal agreement occurred long before the five-year review period was up?
	I have asked some probing questions to seek clarification from the Minister on measures that the Government have brought forward entirely properly, the spirit of which I strongly support. I look forward to his response.

Martin Salter: I support the Government's new clauses and consequential amendments, and I thank the Minister for responding positively in Committee on 7 July to my amendment 51, which had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for St. Ives (Andrew George), and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is sometimes my fishing partner.
	It is good that the Government have listened and recognised a clear flaw in the original concept of IFCAs—that they would have had responsibility right up to the tidal limit, even though they are primarily about sea fishery interests for recreational angling and for commercial and conservational purposes. It was always somewhat absurd to suggest that the River Thames at Teddington should be patrolled by the local sea fishery committee. We would never have seen a boat from a sea fishery committee or an IFCA on the tidal Thames there, the tidal Severn at Gloucester or, I am sure, the tidal Trent at Collingham, just outside Nottingham. I am pleased that our representations have been listened to.

Charles Walker: I shall make only a brief contribution. I have served on the Bill in all its forms for about 18 months and I must say that I am extremely pleased that the Government have introduced new clause 2. In four years of being a Member of Parliament, I have never been so over-excited as I am now about this clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) that it would be ridiculous if he and I were pike, perch or chub fishing on Teddington weir and a marine fishery officer's boat came sailing past to check our licences. The measure is common sense—we have had an outbreak of common sense in this place—and Sam Coates of  The Times, far from criticising it, should be celebrating it in his column tomorrow.

Roger Williams: I, too, have taken great pleasure in being part of the Bill, because it is hugely important to protect the marine environment on which so many of our people depend for their employment and which makes an important contribution to biodiversity locally, nationally and internationally.
	I rise briefly to speak to amendment 27, which is in my name. Having said that, I welcome Government new clauses 2, 3 and 6, which are based on the amendment that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) tabled in Committee. The Minister at that time gave a commitment to look at the aims and purposes of that proposal and to see whether it could be worked into the Bill.
	If the new clause had been tabled in the form of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Reading, West, we might have sought to amend it following certain things that have been brought to my attention. The current proposals mention allowing IFCAs to enter into agreements with other bodies to allow the latter to take on some of the duties and powers of the former, but only with the permission and agreement of the Secretary of State. The Welsh Assembly Government have made it known that they want to take on the role of the IFCA for Wales, and it seems inappropriate for them to have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to enter into such agreements.
	We are talking about the very important species that live some of their time in the oceans and some of their time in fresh water—diadromous fish. They are particularly vulnerable, because they can be badly affected by over-fishing as they approach our shores. However, they can also be badly affected because their spawning grounds could be detrimentally affected by practices farther up the rivers. Therefore, my amendment goes to the heart of the matter in giving the Welsh Assembly Government the powers to allow Welsh IFCAs to enter into agreements to transfer responsibilities and duties that the Secretary of State has in relation to IFCAs in England. It is a simple amendment, but it would clarify the devolved powers that the Welsh Assembly wishes to take on.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank hon. Members for the spirit in which we have begun this debate. It is reminiscent of the approach that has been taken throughout this Bill—constructive engagement and an attempt to improve the Bill. I welcome the support that we have heard for these amendments, especially from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). He and others, including the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), made the valid point that IFCAs need to be representative. That will be achieved. IFCAs are a mutation of the role of the sea fisheries committees, and they will have added duties and responsibilities—everyone agrees that that is the right approach—but they will need to be properly representative.
	Clause 151 provides that the membership of IFCAs will include the Marine Management Organisation, the Environment Agency and Natural England, which will each have a statutory seat. Those seats will be set out in the order establishing each IFCA, in order to maintain some flexibility. Around a third of seats will be allocated to local authority members, under clause 151(1)(a), and the constituent upper and single-tier local authorities in each IFC district will be set out in the order establishing each individual IFCA. The balance of seats will be appointed by the MMO and will include members
	"acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing community of the district".
	I want to see all the varied interests of the fishing industry properly represented.
	We do not want the IFCAs to be unwieldy. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) knows, we love committees in Wales, but it is good to have them doing something instead of just existing, and IFCAs will need to be very effective and efficient. Also represented on the IFCAs should be
	"persons with knowledge of, or expertise in, marine environmental matters."
	The new IFCAs have been welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders. They will have a clear duty to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out sustainably, and they will have a greater focus than the sea fisheries committees on the impact of fishing activity on wider marine eco-systems. That is part and parcel of the Bill. Significantly, IFCAs will have a new duty to protect the marine environment and promote its recovery from the effects of exploitation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I confirm that what we all want—and what the Bill is designed to do—is to ensure that those interests represented on the IFCAs are genuinely representative. Where there is a strong recreational sea-angling fraternity—or sorority—in an area, it will want to have its say as well. Having that local determination and representing genuinely local interests is key, including in Newlyn, for example, where there are significantly different types of fisheries. Whether those involved are commercial or recreational anglers, they need to be able to have their say.
	The balance of members appointed by the MMO to each IFCA will reflect the economic, social and environmental needs of that IFCA. Members will therefore be appointed according to the relevant expertise that they bring, which is the right way to proceed. The detail of the appointment process will be drafted in guidance, which will be helpful to members and which we will consult on in 2010. That will help to ensure that the membership of each IFCA has the right representation and knowledge across all the relevant sectors, exactly as I have been saying. Given the level of sea angling in the inshore area, however, we expect sea anglers to continue to be represented on IFCAs.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Not only will the IFCA membership be decided in consultation, but everybody will have the opportunity to put their views forward. I am sure that some people will feel that they are not represented fully, but that can change from time to time as well. We are enhancing the membership of IFCAs, so that they will have more than the traditional expertise of sea fisheries committees. It is worth putting on record the fact that there is a genuine body of expertise in sea fisheries committees around the country, but we are talking about an enhanced role, with other people involved. Rather than having me prescribe what will happen, everyone will have the opportunity in the consultation to put in their two-penn'orth about who should be represented.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives talked about disagreements, which touches on the point that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) has just raised. If there are disagreements, there is a duty in clause 169 for IFCAs to co-operate with other local bodies. We expect them to work closely together, as they do now. Local issues should be looked at locally, without nanny-state interventions or a Big Brother or big Minister stepping in. We are confident, by and large, that it will be possible to resolve such issues locally.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives asked why we have chosen a five-year review and how disagreements will be resolved in between. New clause 4 says "no later than" every five years. A review could therefore be conducted sooner if, for example, there were representations from a relevant body, or if the Secretary of State decided, in respect of representations made to him, that there was a need to review the situation on the ground.
	I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and his work on the issue over some time. It is pertinent that he has recognised that the new clauses and amendments deliver common sense—we cannot always say that about legislation, but they are common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) was challenged on the definition—I understand the point about the definition. This is a practical way forward. It will not be necessary arbitrarily to define the definition, because it will be known from the people who are out there doing the work and patrolling. The amendment will allow a local definition to be introduced. I welcome the support of my hon. Friend and others as the Bill went through Committee; it delivers common sense.
	I welcome the intervention by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is a strong advocate on behalf of his constituents and the fleet in his area. In the light of the comments that I have just made, I confirm that IFCAs will receive representations from fishing interests, and I have tried to make it clear that we want to ensure that those interests are genuinely represented, as clause 151(2)(a) provides.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to Wales, and I am pleased that it has arisen early in the debate. Who speaks for Wales? The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire rose to his feet. Nothing in the Bill requires the Welsh Assembly Government to obtain permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on IFCAs and delegations. The Bill does not require that, and I shall explain why.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 27, which is pertinent. His intention is to allow Welsh Assembly Ministers the same flexibility as that prescribed for England in Government amendments to delegate IFCA functions. However, the stated intention of my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, from the start of the Bill, was to take the same functions as IFCAs in-house and explicitly not to allow delivery of those functions by other bodies. That is the premise on which we proceeded.
	In response to that, the Bill does not prevent Welsh Assembly Ministers from working closely with the Environment Agency to ensure good management of the inshore area, including estuaries. The Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Environment Act 1995 allow the National Assembly for Wales to pass secondary legislation at the request of the Environment Agency, and for agency officers to be cross-warranted to enforce against the legislation.
	I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to allow better delivery of inshore fisheries management functions in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, that is not exactly the case. However, the situation on the ground in Wales means that by virtue of the function of the Welsh Assembly Government to take these powers in-house—the Welsh Assembly Government will effectively become the IFCA for Wales—they already have the power to make delegations. If they were to want such powers, they would indeed have to return here, and I am sure that, on these Benches at least, we would be open to that possibility. As I hope that I have explained, the history of the journey to reach this part of the Bill was very much predicated on, and reflects the initial concerns and interests of, Welsh Assembly Government Ministers.
	Attempting to unravel all this at such a late stage would be complex: it would involve more than amendment 27, as there would be a great deal of detailed read-across in respect of much of the Bill. We are now in the final stages—I hope so, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of this landmark Bill, and I do not want to revisit an issue as fundamental as this one, particularly when the trajectory that we followed was initially set by Welsh Assembly Government Ministers. Welsh Assembly Government Ministers have some flexibility to delegate functions, even though they are taken in-house, but the situation in England is very different. We need to provide this flexibility to the IFCAs we are setting up, so that they can work collaboratively on the ground.
	To clarify, Welsh Ministers have the power to make orders that would assist the Environment Agency to undertake management functions on inshore fisheries. There is some flexibility, as I have said, but this would need to be brought back to this House to provide the sort of mechanism that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is asking for.
	With the assurance that that what we have now is a genuine undertaking reached in discussion with Welsh Government Assembly Ministers very early on, which explains how we have got to where we are, and with the flexibility to take the matter in-house and to issue other ways of working to the Environment Agency, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel confident enough to withdraw the amendment. There may be a future opportunity to provide the sort of mechanism that he wants, but it is not appropriate right here or right now.

Roger Williams: I thank the Minister again for going into so much detail, but he will understand that there are still some reservations about this, particularly the fact that the Welsh Assembly will have to come back to this place to assume powers that are now available to IFCAs—and only with the permission and consent of the Secretary of State. I understand the Minister's point that it would be a complex matter to table further amendments at this stage, but is there no possibility of doing so in the other place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, not least because, now that the Bill has come through Public Bill Committee and travelled through the other place with extensive deliberations having already taken place, the process of rewriting complex and detailed further amendments—not just the hon. Gentleman's amendment 27—would be extremely difficult, because of the scores of read-across issues. I have to say that that prospect is too nightmarish to behold at this stage. We are now at a certain point in the parliamentary cycle and at a certain point in the Bill's passage. If we were in the pre-consultation period—we should bear in mind that, with all the lobbying, the Bill has already taken six years or longer to get to this point—we might be able to build this concept into the Bill. As I have said, however, to unravel all that now would be to the detriment of the chances of this Bill ever succeeding.
	Welsh Ministers will have the same level of powers to manage fisheries as will be available to IFCAs in England. In those cases where Welsh Ministers want to delegate functions to the Environment Agency, they would need to make orders on behalf of that agency—and they can. This would enable them to ensure good management of the inshore areas, including estuaries, in Wales. Welsh Ministers have argued in the past that the inability of the Environment Agency to introduce legislation for sea fisheries would interfere with the lead role in implementation of the water framework directive and make it more difficult for Wales to comply with WFD obligations. That relates to the quality of water, fish and invertebrate fauna.
	It will be possible for Welsh Ministers to make statutory instruments on the request of the Environment Agency. Although this will not be as flexible as giving the agency direct powers to make legislation, the Welsh Assembly Government chose to bring inshore fisheries management powers in-house, thereby complicating any subsequent proposal to delegate them. The Welsh Assembly Government would effectively give the agency powers to make byelaws. The issue would require considered, careful exploration. In the time available, it would be extremely difficult to draft a sensible proposal, with input not only from the Welsh Assembly Government but from external stakeholders.

'(1) In this Chapter "eligible body", in relation to an agreement entered into by the authority for an IFC district, means any body in the following list—
	(a) the authority for any IFC district that adjoins the district;
	(b) the Environment Agency.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) so as to—
	(a) add any body or description of body to the list, or
	(b) remove any body or description of body from it.
	(3) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2)(a) unless—
	(a) the body, or every body of the description, to be added to the list is a public body, and
	(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that at least one of the purposes or functions of the body, or bodies of the description, to be added to the list is, or is related to or connected with, an inshore marine function.
	(4) In this section "inshore marine function" means any function which relates to, or whose exercise is capable of affecting, the whole or any part of the English inshore region.'.— (Huw Irranca-Davies.)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State—
	(a) must review an agreement no later than the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the date on which the agreement was entered into or was last reviewed by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) if it appears appropriate to do so in the light of the review, may cancel the agreement.
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), an agreement may not be varied except—
	(a) by agreement between the IFC authority and the eligible body, and
	(b) with the approval of the Secretary of State.
	(3) An approval given under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies](1) may provide that subsection (1) or (2) of this section does not apply (or that both of them do not apply).'.— (Huw Irranca-Davies .)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) The fact that a function is conferred by or under this Act or an Act passed after the passing of this Act does not prevent it from being the subject of an agreement.
	(2) An IFC authority may, under an agreement, authorise an eligible body to perform a function even though, under the enactment or subordinate legislation conferring that function on the IFC authority,—
	(a) the function is conferred on the IFC authority by reference to specified circumstances or cases and the same type of function is conferred on the eligible body in different specified circumstances or cases,
	(b) the function is exercisable by the IFC authority and the eligible body jointly,
	(c) the eligible body is required to be, or may be, consulted about the function (whether generally or in specified circumstances), or
	(d) the eligible body is required to consent to the exercise of the function (whether generally or in specified circumstances).
	(3) An agreement may provide—
	(a) for the performance of a function to be subject to the fulfilment of conditions;
	(b) for payments to be made in respect of the performance of the function.
	(4) Any eligible body which is authorised under an agreement to perform a function—
	(a) is to be treated as having power to do so;
	(b) may, unless (or except to the extent that) the agreement provides for this paragraph not to apply, authorise a committee, sub-committee, member, officer or employee of the body to perform the function on its behalf.
	(5) Subject to subsection (4)(b), an eligible body which is authorised under an agreement to perform a function may not authorise any other body or person to perform that function.
	(6) Section 177 (exemption from liability) applies in relation to any function which an eligible body is authorised under an agreement to perform as if the reference to an IFC authority were a reference to the eligible body.'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

'(1) An agreement under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies], and any approval given by the Secretary of State under that section, must be in writing.
	(2) An IFC authority which has entered into an agreement with an eligible body must arrange for a copy of the agreement to be published in a way that the IFC authority thinks is suitable for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.
	(3) No power of a Minister of the Crown under any enactment to give directions to a statutory body extends to giving a direction—
	(a) requiring it to enter into an agreement under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies];
	(b) prohibiting it from entering into such an agreement;
	(c) requiring it to include, or prohibiting it from including, particular terms in such an agreement;
	(d) requiring it to negotiate, or prohibiting it from negotiating, a variation or termination of such an agreement.
	(4) Schedule 15 to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40) (restrictions on disclosure of information) applies in relation to an authorisation by an IFC authority or an eligible body under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies] or [Agreements under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies]: particular powers] of this Act as it applies in relation to an authorisation under section 69 of that Act by an office-holder.'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Amendment made: 6, page 108, line 29, at end insert—
	'( ) Regulations under this section may make different provision for cases where an IFC authority has entered into an agreement under section [Power to enter into agreements with eligible bodies] authorising a body to perform any of the authority's functions relating to byelaws.'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)

Amendment made: 7, page 110, line 22, leave out 'by the authority for the district' and insert
	'under section 155 for the district (or having effect as if so made)'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)

Amendment made: 8, page 115, line 9, at end insert—
	'"eligible body" has the meaning given by section [Eligible bodies];'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 32, in clause 292, page 189, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
	'(a) holds a legal estate or has a legal interest in the land, or'.
	Amendment 34, in clause 297, page 195, line 13, at end insert—
	'(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, set out the way in which a person with a relevant interest in land may require Natural England to review a coastal access report. Reasons for review may include—
	(a) proposed or actual changes in the use of land;
	(b) review of existing directions or proposed new directions made under Chapter 2 or Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of the right of access.
	(2) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must set out the way in which a person with a relevant interest in land may make an objection under the procedure set out in Schedule 19 including objections against the refusal of Natural England to undertake a review, or to carry out the review within specified timescales, or to amend a coastal access report.'.
	Amendment 33, page 197, line 49, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
	'(a) holds a legal estate or has a legal interest in the land, or'.
	Amendment 40, page 200, line 32, at end insert—
	'(10) The Secretary of State shall within 2 years from the commencement of this section lay before Parliament a report which shall appraise the progress made in establishing long distance coastal routes in England with particular regard to—
	(a) the voluntary inclusion of parkland;
	(b) the inclusion of the Isle of Wight;
	(c) the addition of further islands reachable by ferry;
	(d) the use of seasonal ferries as part of the coastal path.
	(11) In the report required in (10) The Secretary of State shall append proposals to remedy shortcomings in the establishment of coastal routes that are apparent to him as a result of its presentation.'.
	Amendment 37, page 202, line 26, leave out Clause 300.

Richard Benyon: We could take up a lot of time arguing about maths. Charles Clover goes on to say that a place in his locality in Essex, Mistley quay, will not benefit from access as a result of the Bill. We need to be upfront about what will actually be provided, and how we can facilitate such provision.
	Amendment 35 deals with coastal margin, or spreading room. As has been made clear throughout our debates on the Bill, it will be impossible to provide spreading room—or coastal margin—along the entirety of the coastal route. Safety, privacy and biosecurity have all been cited as real and legitimate reasons for a limitation being placed on it. Our amendment seeks to change the wording of clause 291 to reflect the reality of spreading room. If it is not to be placed along the entirety of the coastal route—as we have been reassured by Natural England and the Minister that it will not—the wording of the Bill should reflect that.
	The issue of coastal margin in the Bill has raised concerns around the country, not least because there will be many areas of exceptions and restrictions. The concept of complete access along a coastal margin will simply not be achievable. The Bill should be amended to reflect reality so that the public are not misled, as they may have been by the perception that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 would create a universal right to roam.

Richard Benyon: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. What I am saying is certainly not a criticism of him or of anyone else who was involved in that Bill, but I assure him that many people immediately assumed that there was some new right enabling them to go anywhere, although we all know that that was not the case. Perhaps we can blame elements of the press for the way in which they reported what was happening. I am sorry if what was intended to be a fairly benign comment has excited a few people—

Martin Salter: rose—

Richard Benyon: I was not in the House at the time. May we draw a line under this argument? I did not intend to create such excitement—although, during what could have been a fairly dry afternoon, it has proved to be an exciting diversion. I should be happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman on the river bank.
	The concept that all land adjacent to, and seaward of, the line of the route should be included as coastal margin is, as we know, unrealistic. While there is an intention to draw the route as close to the sea as possible, there will be circumstances in which that does not happen. In those circumstances, land types that are clearly not coastal—that are not foreshore or adjacent cliff, bank, dune or flat—should not be included as coastal margin. The Bill should properly reflect the lack of continuity of margin that will inevitably be the case because of physical features on the ground. We believe that a proper distinction needs to be drawn between the route itself and associated spreading room.
	The current Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on the definitions of coastal land shows that there is an inconsistency of approach in its proposals. There is a failure to make a proper distinction between the route and spreading room, such as the proposed inclusion of land within 20 metres of a dwelling not simply to enable the route to pass over it where there is no practical alternative, but also with the possibility of that land being designated as spreading room.
	There is also still considerable concern among some groups over mapping of spreading room. The Minister has given the reassurance that he believes that Natural England should be sensitive to requests for maps. Is he willing to give a reassurance on the Floor of the House, however, as that would be very helpful? Given that it has been generally accepted by the Government that words will not always be sufficient to describe the coastal margin associated with the new coastal trail, will the Minister confirm that where a land occupier or landowner has made a reasonable request for the provision of a map for clarity, Natural England will be sympathetic in meeting such requests?
	Amendments 32 and 33 concern the definition of an interest in the land. We believe that coastal access must be based upon local consensus where possible, and be developed at local level in order to ensure that this right of access takes account of the pre-existing rights of farmers, home owners, businesses, wildfowling clubs and other sporting interests, as well as the needs of conservation and public safety. This proposal follows concerns that we raised in Committee over the treatment of those with certain legal interests in land, such as those with sporting rights, that we felt were absent from the Bill.
	I acknowledge that the Government have made some movement in this area, and have reinstated the right of appeal, under the CROW Act, where restrictions or exclusions are proposed. It has also been said that the representations made by holders of sporting interests, but not holders of other legal interests such as mineral rights, will be passed on fully to the Secretary of State rather than being summarised. There remains, however, a feeling among certain groups that Government concessions do not amount to equal rights. The Bill still does not give equal treatment to all those people who have a legal interest in the land, thereby creating a two-tier system among those with different legal interests. For example, the Bill includes those with grazing licences. That right of occupation could be for a very small amount of annual rent compared with, let us say, sporting rights, which could be of considerably greater value and require, as in the case of wildfowling clubs, huge amounts of conservation investment both in terms of money and effort over many years.
	The Bill currently provides that occupiers and owners will be taken into account both at the walking the course phase and when considering whether a fair balance has been struck between the interests of the owner or occupier and the interests of the public who may wish to walk a coastal route. However, there are some legal interests that do not have the same rights. In particular, holders of sporting and mineral rights will not be treated in the same way as owners and occupiers.
	Particular concern arises in respect of the setting of the route and margin. If Natural England is not required to take into account some legal interests, such as mineral or sporting rights, it could set the route in a way that seriously impinges on those rights. Furthermore, it may result in the total loss of use of such rights without its being called to account, as there is no obligation on Natural England to take account of those interests in determining whether a fair balance has been reached. Throughout Committee stage, we agreed that the Bill requires us to take a great leap of faith in organisations such as Natural England. All my discussions with it have made me conscious that it is up to the task and is looking at this issue in entirely the right way, but we really do need some assurance—I hope, in the Bill.
	Our amendment seeks to redress this imbalance by ensuring that the definitions of interest in the land include all those with a legal estate or interest in the land, as is the case under the CROW Act. We recognise attempts by the Minister to negotiate a route through this issue at his summit last month, and that he was not helped by a divergence of opinion among some of the groups present. He may have found a way forward and I am happy to support it, but I do want reassurances on this point.
	Amendment 34 concerns the need for changes to the route to reflect a change of use of the land in question where it is affected by the route of the path or spreading room. The Government have consistently promised that the coastal access route will be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances; however, nothing in the Bill ensures that. How is Natural England to know that a development has been approved, and that it must alter its coastal access report as a result of that development affecting the coastal access route? How does the developer notify Natural England and ensure that the coastal access report is up to date and takes account of the changes that have been approved? The amendment would ensure that those with an interest in the land have the right to request changes to coastal access in future where there is a change in use of the land. At the very least, we need an assurance from the Minister that such a mechanism will be included explicitly within Natural England's coastal access scheme. We also need an explicit assurance that guidance will be provided to local planning authorities confirming the flexible nature of the coastal access provisions.
	Amendment 37 concerns liability issues. Although it is Natural England and the Secretary of State who will identify the coastal route and areas of spreading room, clause 300 removes all liability from Natural England and the Secretary of State for any failures that may occur in connection with its coastal access duty. It is surely wrong for Government to try to restrict liability in this way. The Secretary of State and Natural England are both charged under clause 291 with exercising the coastal access duty. That duty should be carried out with due regard to public safety. If liability is removed, as proposed, members of the public will be unable to find any redress from the Government or Natural England for failures in identifying a safe coastal access route. Retaining liability at some level, at least, will act as a reminder to Natural England and the Secretary of State to determine coastal access carefully and remain mindful of their responsibilities toward the public. It will provide a powerful check and balance in determining the precise location of any coastal access.
	I am not in the business of creating vast new burdens on any Government agency or on Ministers themselves, but the question of liability does need a reasoned response. The Minister may be able to give me some reassurances or suggest an alternative solution to my amendment. In fact, it is unclear in the Bill exactly where liability will lie. It would be helpful to have some words from the Minister in this regard.

Martin Salter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon)—his Front-Bench colleagues would do well to examine how he has approached this Bill and this thorny issue in particular—because the House has just heard an example of constructive opposition that will lead to effective change. When we leave this place, as I will shortly, it is nice to think that we have been the architects of effective change rather than just a handful of soundbites.
	I shared the concern of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, recreational angling interests and Members from all parts of the House that some of the coastal access provisions, as originally drafted, could have had unintended consequences. Surely part of what we are about when we scrutinise legislation is guarding against and avoiding those. Nobody in their right mind wants to drive a coastal access path through a piece of land if that would put the public at risk or inhibit the legitimate enjoyment and sport of wild fowlers, who for generations have enjoyed their sport on many of the marshlands and estuaries around our coasts. The recreational angling sector, although less affected, had concerns about coastal access paths going past places of particular popularity with people who beach-cast. I am talking about guys who throw 4 or 5 ounces of lead some 200-odd yards from a beach, so it is not a good idea for a footpath to be immediately behind them—unless a member of the public wants to have a quick swim or possibly be seriously injured in some other way.
	It was important that those sporting interests could be represented in the consultation mechanism in respect of the establishment of the path. Following some vigorous exchanges in Committee, which were based on amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury and me—there was support from other hon. Members—the Minister kindly agreed to convene a summit on 7 September. I thank him for apprising us of the outcome, and I wish to read into the record what he has said in writing:
	"I have therefore proposed that those with a sporting right (including holders of sporting tenancies), should be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under Schedule 19 to the Bill, to ensure that their representations are given particular consideration by the Secretary of State...The effect of this would be that Natural England would have to take reasonable steps to give notice of a relevant coastal access report to those with sporting rights, and any representations which they made on the report would go in full to the Secretary of State".
	That is important.
	People have criticised this as not so much a victory and not so much a significant policy change, but they are the same bunch who misrepresented the CROW Act and one would not be surprised to learn that they are usually a little late on these issues. The fact that sporting interests will have the ability to make representations right to the very top of the tree—they will have access to the top of the pile—is one of the reasons why the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Angling Trust have welcomed the improvement made, the assurances given by the Minister and the conclusions of the summit held on 7 September. As far as I am concerned, and as far as recreational shooters and anglers are concerned, this is a job well done. We do not see the need for this to be a point of contention, so notwithstanding the strong and pertinent remarks that he made, I urge the hon. Member for Newbury to recognise that there is little need for the House to divide on this issue.

Peter Atkinson: I wish to say a few brief words in support of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) from our Front Bench. I did not serve on the Committee, so this is the first time that I have been able to comment on this part of the Bill. Like him, I think it is regrettable that this whole matter of coastal access was put into a very important Bill dealing with marine conservation. Many other complicated issues have thus been raised and the subject deserved a piece of legislation on its own; I am totally in favour of providing coastal access, but such an undertaking should have been dealt with in separate legislation. I am sure that both sides of the House would have welcomed that and would have facilitated the passage of such legislation.
	Coastal access is desirable, but, harking back to the right-to-roam section of the CROW Act, once again—I do not want to excite the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on this matter—most people want recreation in the countryside, on moorland and on the coast, but they want an improvement in our existing rights of way network. Footpaths and circular walks can be easily created and farmers can have sensible diversions for footpaths on their land—that is what the majority of people in this country want. When the right-to-roam section of the CROW Act came in, it diverted an enormous amount of money from and effort by Natural England, or whatever it was called in those days, to create the open access areas.
	I can talk with first-hand knowledge only about my own area, Northumberland. We have masses of open moorland near where I live. The fell outside the village has been walked on by local people and visitors for years, but it was not included in open access. Pieces of ground that no one really wants to walk on have now been included for open access, so all we get is a lot of money spent on new gateposts with new signs on them, and the walking experience and walking environment in the area are not improved. In a sense, I regret the diversion that the opening of coastal access will cause Natural England with its core responsibilities of opening access to the public and creating better rights of way and bridleway networks throughout the country.
	I would like my hon. Friend's amendment to be accepted because I am aware that wildfowling clubs and those with other sporting interests are extremely worried that their interests could be overlooked. I appreciate what a lot of progress was made in Committee; nevertheless, the amendment would be better for those groups. We are talking about organisations, particularly wildfowling clubs, that invested tens of thousands—even hundreds of thousands—of pounds over the years in conservation efforts to develop safe and responsible wildfowling around the coast. If that could be prejudiced in any way by the creation of the coastal path, they would clearly be extremely worried. I hope that the Minister will once again reassure them.
	Let me mention another case that was brought to my attention. In one area, small inshore fishing boats, which are hauled up off the foreshore, are launched some distance from the coast. There is no legal right to do that, only centuries of customs and practice. I was interested to note those concerns, and I hope that the Minister can explain that those people have nothing to worry about.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but point out that it has been calculated that since the opening up of the long-distance path the entire length of Hadrian's wall, there has been a 99 per cent. increase in the number of long-distance walkers using the path. The south-west coastal path has been estimated to generate at least £307 million annually for the regional economy, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is a wide range of walkers using any path, whether inland or on the coast, but there will be a significant increase in long-distance walkers once the provisions have been enacted.
	On amendment 35, I should like to focus attention on the importance of the provisions for establishing spreading room for certain sporting interests. We have today heard comments about sporting interests, which were entirely legitimate, but there are other sporting interests with an interest in coastal access. The British Mountaineering Council, for instance, is keen to establish that the natural physical boundaries that are recommended as the boundary of the landward side of the margins recommended are included in the margin, not seen as the outer boundary of that margin. That is extremely important for rock climbers and mountaineers because there are rock faces and cliff faces that face inwards—landwards—on our coastline, and if they are to become the natural boundaries for the margin, it is very important that they are included in the margins, and that we establish these margins wherever possible and, if possible, along the entire coastal access path.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said—he is no longer in his place—amendment 32 makes a fair point. I am not convinced that it should be pressed to a Division, but many other sporting interests would be sympathetic to the sentiment expressed in the amendment. The British Mountaineering Council has made it clear that when there are temporary closures of coastal footpaths for various reasons, such as for nesting at certain times of year, or in order for conservation measures to be undertaken, those temporary closures should take place on the basis of voluntary partnerships at local level wherever possible. I should like an assurance from the Minister today that the least restrictive option will be recommended for the temporary closure of coastal footpaths for the reasons that I outlined.
	Amendment 34 is about the inclusion of particular voices in the consultation process and potential objections to Natural England's refusal to undertake a review, and I reiterate the importance of ensuring that consultation on the establishment of any coastal path in any local area includes, at the earliest possible stage, those with a legitimate interest in the matter. The Ramblers Association, in particular, feels strongly about it, and the association has a fair point, so I should appreciate the Minister's comments on the matter.
	The points that amendment 40 raises were debated at some length in Committee, but the issue of parks and gardens is ongoing, and I reiterate the point that was made in Committee, whereby there must be a distinction between parks on the one hand and gardens on the other. Surely no one in this House would try to argue that an individual whose private garden happened to be near the coast deserved to have ramblers, walkers and rock climbers on his or her land. That would be absolutely unreasonable. However, with large estates attached to large parks that, in many cases, go down to the coastline, there is a case for establishing coastal access that does not impact intrusively on park owners.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, and perhaps she will remind the House that Natural England, the statutory adviser, recommended that parks and gardens be not excluded—exempted—from the Bill.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I remain disappointed that the provision for excluding parks and gardens from the Bill has not been removed. At this late stage, however, it remains for those of us who would have favoured such a change to the Bill simply to ask the Minister to reassure us that the matter will come back before the House within two years, with a report on whether the voluntary arrangements that the Government recommended have worked. I stress that if we find they have not, we will need to think again about putting regulations—amendments—in place to deal with the issue effectively.
	The Isle of Wight is a popular holiday destination whose value to walkers and tourists alike is well known, but it is excluded from the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) will have something to say about that, but I should argue that the Isle of Wight, being the biggest island belonging to the UK and reasonably accessible by ferry all-year round, should be included in the Bill's coastal access provisions. We look to the Minister to reassure us that an order will be made to include the Isle of Wight in those provisions.
	The issue of ferries, and, in particular, whether islands that are reached by seasonal ferries should be included in the Bill, has not been satisfactorily resolved. The question is, when seasonal ferries do not operate, in winter usually, what do walkers who wish to use coastal footpaths do? Are they to face long detours, or will Natural England be encouraged to make alternative provisions to get around the fact that those ferries do not operate at certain times of the year?
	Having said all that, I wish the Bill well and hope that the Minister will respond positively to the comments on the proposed changes to it.

Bernard Jenkin: I have spoken to the Bill only once before, on Second Reading, when I discussed its fisheries conservation aspects. I shall use this opportunity, however, to address its coastal access provisions. I have no registrable interests to declare, but my family, like the Secretary of State's family, have a tiny patch of coastline that is affected by the Bill. I do not wish to address that today, however.
	I am intrigued by the amendment, which replaces "is" with "may be". Perhaps in tabling it, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) was demonstrating his lack of faith that the Bill would deliver what the Government promise. If the amendment is proffered in that spirit, I very much want to support it, not because I oppose the principle of coastal access but because I think a lot of people will be disappointed by what the Bill delivers.
	I am most concerned by what is excluded from the coastal access provisions under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 definition of relevant "excepted land". I must relate to the House a bizarre situation, of which my constituent, Charles Clover, gave a very good account in yesterday's  Sunday Times, concerning the Mistley quay in my constituency. Mistley is a little town on the Stour estuary that has a quay on which it is recorded that boats unloaded fish as long ago as the 14th century. By some anachronism, perhaps, the quay has historically been privately owned. However, the public have always enjoyed access to it, so that barges and, in more recent decades, yachts and pleasure craft have been able to use the quay for their enjoyment. That was fine until the Health and Safety Executive threatened to prosecute the quay's operators under health and safety laws for providing insufficient safety equipment on the quay. The HSE gave the owner a choice between either putting up signs and providing suitable equipment such as lifebuoys and ladders or other devices by which people who fall in the water can get out or be rescued, or putting up a fence. It chose the cheaper of the two options and erected an 8-foot wire fence across that historic part of Mistley—across the quay. It is now impossible for ordinary people to access and use the quay.
	What will the Bill do for those parts of the coastline that have historically had public access but that are excluded by the Bill? For those areas, the phrase "may be" is very much the operable sentiment, because the Bill seems to do nothing to strengthen proposals for public open spaces on the coastline in areas that are excluded by the Bill.
	Let me emphasise how extraordinary the situation is. There has been a huge amount of public protest about this matter in my constituency. I feel sorry for Trent Wharfage, the owner of the quay to which I referred, for being caught up in all this, although I think that it has gone the wrong way about handling the situation and that it could have avoided a confrontation. It has blocked off historic rights that have existed for a long time, and it looks as though this matter can now be settled only through the courts and a complicated legal process that may not be successful. The Bill would do absolutely nothing to assist the ordinary population of Mistley in resolving this situation.
	A few weeks ago, a dinghy capsized in the Stour estuary and a lifeboat was called out from Harwich. A rescue was undertaken and the lifeboat took the people and their dinghy to Mistley quay, but they could not access the quay and no helicopter could land there because of the fence. The fence had to be cut down, with the help of local residents, so that the rescue could be properly effected. What a great victory for health and safety and the HSE! I hope that the Minister will forgive me for placing this very unhappy situation on the record, but I want to know how the Bill will help to resolve it.
	The Bill purports to solve all the problems of coastal access, but it demonstrates a thoughtless, rather broad-brush approach that a lot of people have complained about because it will hurt rural parts of the coastline, conservation, privacy and other vital things. Little has been said about how the exclusion of ports could lead to more situations such as that at Mistley quay. The Bill does absolutely nothing to help to resolve that issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address that fact.

Alan Whitehead: I would like particularly to address my remarks to amendment 40, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt).
	The Bill is progressing through Report with remarkably few major amendments having been tabled. That is a tribute to the fact that it came into this House as a very good Bill and, that during its passage, my hon. Friend the Minister has taken full cognisance of sensible efforts to ensure that it leaves us not just as a very good Bill but as an excellent Bill. The spirit of co-operation and sweet reason that has characterised many parts of the debates demonstrates the general feeling around the House that the Bill is essential for the marine and coastal environment of England and that it should be, and is, as good as it can be.
	The modest proposal in the amendment underlines not only the spirit of negotiation and voluntary discussion that is a substantial part particularly of the coastal access elements of the Bill, but the notion that those provisions set out genuine principles and a real understanding of what it is to have coastal access around England. They belong honourably within a marine Bill. One cannot, in a discussion of shipping and ports, separate what is on the land side from what is on the seaward side of a ports' operations and activities, and the coast is an essential part of our marine environment not only in terms of public access but of how it relates to the marine environment beyond the shores and out to sea.
	The aim of the Bill as regards the coast is clear and explicit. It states—no parties to this discussion have demurred from this definition:
	"The first objective is that there is a route for the whole of the English coast which...consists of one or more long-distance routes along which the public are enabled to make recreational journeys on foot or by ferry".
	Although it is true that most people will access only a part of that coast, the fact that a continuous path is aimed for underpins the whole nature of the access provided. The Bill sets out that ambition well—which, of course, the public understand cannot be fully achieved in all circumstances. In my area of the country, the public do not expect coastal access to mean that they can charge through berths 101, 102 and 103 of Southampton port, then transfer across to the car-handling facilities on the eastern docks, and then take a detour along the gravel extraction wharves further up the river. Neither do they expect to tramp through people's gardens and private property in the way that has been outlined in Committee and elsewhere. However, they have a reasonable expectation that the aim to ensure a continuous path will be achieved as far as is reasonably possible. That will be done, in the first instance, largely through negotiation and discussion and on a voluntary basis, and that is right.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case, with which I wholeheartedly agree, that the best way to achieve a continuous path with sensible and reasonable exceptions has to be negotiation and discussion. The purpose of amendment 40 is to act on the basis of trust with a purpose. It is clear from our discussions in Committee that Natural England, landowners and various other people will need to get together to ensure that there is a voluntary agreement. That is important and I welcome it, but that is in the context of a Bill that states that as far as possible, there should be a continuous coastal path.
	We hope and believe that those negotiations will work, and I am reassured that most people have a clear understanding of what voluntary agreement means and what arrangements can be reached to ensure coastal access. However, if those negotiations do not work, the amendment says not that there should be top-down legislation but that the House ought to know about it. The House should know what has gone well and what has gone badly, which voluntary agreements have worked and which have not and whether there are serious shortcomings compared with the ambition behind the Bill and our discussions in Committee. If there are, the Secretary of State's report may need to point out what remedies are available.
	In some instances remedies may be available by order and, in others, more detailed remedies may be necessary, but I am not saying that an enormous 16-tonne weight should come down upon the heads of all those who have not conformed to the extent that we might like. Instead, a measured response and a consideration of how well we have done with voluntary agreements should be brought to the attention of the House, and there should be measured thought about what remedies are necessary. If the voluntary arrangements work as well as I hope and believe they will, the report may well be literally about three lines long. However, we must respect the ultimate aim of the Bill and consider how it should be achieved.
	I set out in amendment 40 a number of things on which the report might concentrate. The "voluntary inclusion of parkland", as we all know from the CROW Act 2000, is a difficult matter, because of the difficulty of easily conceding unimpeded access across any area of inland parkland to ramblers when that may cause a problem with a number of functions of that parkland. However, that is not an exact parallel with the question of coastal access, when access would necessarily be along the fringes of parkland. Provided one has a clear definition of privacy and proper safeguards for access, the problem should be resolvable.
	The Isle of Wight, which is not included in the arrangements, is accessed by ferry, which goes from the doorstep of my constituency on a regular and reliable basis all year round—people can get to the island without any problem at all. In previous years, there was, I believe, a party called the Vectis Nationalist party, which was in favour of independence for the Isle of Wight, but everyone else will agree that the island is very much an essential and beautiful part of the English coastline. The fact that it is an island accessible by ferries should make its inclusion by order in the provisions a reasonably straightforward thing to achieve.
	That leads to the question whether further islands that are accessible reliably and regularly by ferry ought to be included in the scope of the legislation and the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) has already asked; namely, what happens when seasonal ferries do not run. Does plan B come into operation in that situation, or does plan A mean that access would be possible only during certain times of the year and not at others?
	Those issues can all be resolved within the overall aim of the legislation by negotiation, but I do not want to face, in several years' time, a similar situation to that in, for example, the New Forest, where the Solent way, parts of which are 6 miles from the coast, continues to be called a coastal path.

Alan Whitehead: I agree. The fact that the Bill already includes a note about the Isles of Scilly should underline the point, and it is not my intention to ask the Secretary of State for a report in two years on why the Isles of Scilly are not included under provisions for access by ferry to the English coastline.
	I would like a clear understanding that progress will be made on the points that I have mentioned. They are not major points in relation to the development of the coastal path. They are about a minority of coastal paths—8 or 10 per cent. of the length, but we should not deceive ourselves that coastal paths that do not look like coastal paths in certain parts of the country are really coastal paths and therefore can be disregarded. A coastal path is a coastal path, and we should get as close as we can to that definition in reality as soon as possible after the passing of this legislation. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that progress will be made and that he will be vigilant in ensuring that if progress is slow, he will have the remedies in place so that the aim of the Bill is not overthrown.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank hon. Members for a good debate on this group of amendments. I was especially keen to hear the views of Members on these amendments, and I was reassured by the general welcome on both sides for the coastal path and spreading room provision. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) understandably voiced his general concerns, as he and others did in Committee, about the process and the final outcome. He suggested that he was broadly in sympathy with our aims, but he is rightly testing us on how our thinking has progressed since Committee stage.
	As well as the hon. Gentleman, we had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Martin Salter), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), and the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), which were all different but illuminating in terms of the detail that they tried to tease out.
	It is worth remembering at the outset of discussion of this batch of amendments exactly why we are here today. Some hon. Members referred to the article by Charles Clover, whom I have come to know through his work on bluefin tuna. I commend him on his work and leadership in the public domain on that issue, and the Government were pleased to subscribe to that work and to help to push the boat far on it. However, I take issue with him on some of the detail in the article published at the weekend.
	The point has been made that people already have great access, so why do we need to improve it. The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned the issue of statistics, and I shall come to that in a moment, but whether we are talking about 8 per cent. or 30 per cent., I remind him that the 8 per cent. in the middle of a jam doughnut is probably the nicest 8 per cent.—it is the sweet, juicy bit in the middle. We know that the coast is very popular with people for beach activities and wider forms of recreation. The evidence shows that walking is the single most popular activity on the coast, and all Members will be increasingly aware that access to good walking in the countryside brings not only physical health benefits, but mental health benefits. Improving access will give people not just the confidence but, to pick up on my hon. Friends' point, the certainty that wherever they arrive at the coast, other than on excepted land, there will be clear, well managed access in either direction and that they will be able to enjoy a rich and varied environment.
	Let me turn to the Natural England report that underpins the background to the amendments. Natural England conducted a study of access to England's coastline. Its report, which was published in July, revealed that almost 1,000 miles of England's coastline is either inaccessible or lacks secure access—the pertinent point is about the confidence and clarity that there will be secure access. The findings did not come out of the blue, but arose from an extensive audit that Natural England conducted in partnership with 53 local access authorities.
	The results of that study have been published in the form of maps and they show that there is no satisfactory or legally secure access to 34 per cent. of the English coast. That is bigger than the centre of the doughnut; indeed, we are missing a heck of a big chunk. In the north-west that figure rises to 56 per cent.—more than half the coast. I have remarked in the Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere that one of the best areas for progress is the south-west, where full, secure public access extends to 76 per cent. of the coast. However, I would not want to say that there were no areas in the south-west where we did not want to get our teeth into the jam in the middle of the doughnut as well, where that could be done.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Although I would not want to prescribe it myself, that is an admirable idea for a part or all of the provision. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have advocated the idea of remembering Sir Martin Doughty, who passed away only this year, in that way, as having a genuine coastal path and spreading room was a major aspiration of his. If we succeed in introducing the Bill with cross-party support, the idea of recognising his contribution would have my personal support. Many of the organisations out there—whether the Ramblers Association, the British Mountaineering Council or others—would also welcome marking his contribution in some way.

Richard Benyon: Talk of jam doughnuts has excited me and inspired me to see whether I can get a couple of points on the record. Does the Minister agree that we want to go to the best bits—that is, to the jam—first? Natural England should be looking at prioritising areas that will enhance tourism—areas where the path is needed and asked for by local organisations, pubs, village shops and others who will benefit from the tourism that it will bring. Will he also confirm, as I think he did in Committee, that the way Natural England approaches the issue is vital? It needs to understand, for example, that in parts of the south-west there is an existing path, maintained in some cases by landowners at their personal expense and liability, that may not go exactly along the coast. However, if the route takes people across a cliff top, the walker gets a better view. The path will already be there, but it will not be driving the route across the front of a caravan park that is actually on the coast. That flexibility needs to be reflected in how the Bill progresses.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that I shall come to that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I shall try to deal in detail with the various points that have been raised.
	We have recently published a consultation paper on the contents of the order required under section 3A of the CROW Act, as inserted by clause 298 of the Bill. Through that order, the rights for open-air recreation will be created on the coastal margin and the route. Among other things, we have proposed that the description of land that will be specified in the order and to which the new right of access will apply includes the foreshore and any cliff, whether sloping or sheer, adjacent to the foreshore. The interests of walkers and climbers, and of the organisations that represent the interests of those who walk or climb—for example, the Ramblers Association and the British Mountaineering Council—will be fully taken into account before any proposals for the route are finalised. Owners' interests will be taken into account in the consultation process, and in their ability to make objections under new schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as inserted by schedule 19 to the Bill.
	We aim to achieve a route around the whole English coast, and access to a wider margin of land wherever possible, while fairly balancing landowners' and users' interests. That has been the Bill's trajectory throughout. We discussed it ad nauseam in Committee, and that is where we are now. The word "balance" is vital and, as hon. Members know, clause 292 places a duty on the Secretary of State and Natural England to strike a balance between the interests of the public in having a right of access over land, and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the amendment.
	It is worth reflecting on the words of Baroness Hamwee, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the other place. In reply to a similar amendment there she said:
	"At first reading, I thought that this was a moderately benign amendment giving an exception but, now having read it three times, it seems to me that it would give all landward owners and others who fall into that category what amounts to a veto. As I read it, that would wreck the coastal duty. Therefore, we could not support that particular amendment."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2005; Vol. 711, c. 13.]
	On amendments 32 and 33, I welcome the support from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, for the summit on sporting interests, which we held in the summer. It was attended by the Country Land and Business Association, the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Angling Trust, and others. It was a constructive summit, and I shall say more about it in a moment. The proposals emanating from it are sound, and they were welcomed by the BASC, the Angling Trust and others.
	The hon. Member for Newbury has raised an important issue in amendments 32 and 33, which we discussed in Committee. Their combined effect would be to delete the existing categories of owner and leaseholder in clauses 292(4) and proposed new section 55J(2) in clause 297, and replace them with a definition of a "relevant interest", which includes those who hold a legal estate or legal interest in the land. That was part of our discussion at the sporting summit, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) also attended. Natural England and the Secretary of State would have a duty to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land, which would now include those with any interest in the land, including the owners of sporting rights and easements.
	Those people would be a category of persons who must be consulted before Natural England's report is drawn up, and be notified of Natural England's final proposals for a coastal route. They would be able to make objections to Natural England's proposals under the procedures for objections included in schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which schedule 19 inserts in the Bill. That procedure is available to persons with a relevant interest in affected land. In Committee, I said clearly that I want to take further steps to assure those sporting interests not only that their concerns are being listened to, but that we would, if we could, take further steps to assure those with sporting interests over land that they can continue to enjoy their rights when coastal access has been introduced.
	We had a very productive meeting on 7 September, which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and representatives from the Angling Trust, BASC, the Country Land and Business Association and the Countryside Alliance, and I heard their views and concerns about the issues involved. I said at the meeting, and I now reaffirm, that our intention is that those with a sporting right, including holders of sporting tenancies—that was a major concern—should be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under schedule 19 to the Bill to ensure that their representations are given particular consideration by the Secretary of State. The regulations in question are those in paragraph 2(2)(f) of the new schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which would be inserted by schedule 19 to the Bill. The effect would be that Natural England would have to take reasonable steps to give notice of a relevant coastal access report to those with sporting rights, and any representations that they made on the report would go in full to the Secretary of State rather than being summarised.
	The concerns of those with sporting rights will be given full consideration by the Secretary of State, who will make the final decision on Natural England's proposals. In addition, when a landowner's objection is being considered by an appointed person under the procedures in schedule 1A, and the appointed person is minded to determine that the proposals fail to strike a fair balance, a copy of the published notice, which invites representations in relation to the objection, and any "relevant alternative modifications" included in Natural England's comments on it, must be given to the holders of sporting rights and others.
	I believe that our proposed regulations are the right way to go, and that our approach meets the concerns that have been raised. I am extremely pleased that as a result of the summit, the Angling Trust and the BASC have welcomed our proposals as satisfying their concerns. I am confident that public access and public safety can co-exist with the continued ability of those with sporting rights both to enjoy their sport and to run profitable businesses. I recognise the role that sporting interests, such as shooting and angling, play in the rural economy. Significant safeguards are already built into the legislation to ensure that all interests, including sporting interests, are taken into account. The basis of the approach to coastal access is extensive consultation before Natural England's proposals are made. The Secretary of State and Natural England must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having a right of access and those of persons with a relevant interest in the land, as defined in the Bill. However, I stress that all interests will be taken into account when Natural England draws up proposals for the coastal route and the margin.
	The Bill provides for extensive preliminary work and for consultation before Natural England draws up its recommendations. Natural England has said in its draft scheme that it will work with many interests, including shoot managers, when considering the best alignment for the trail. Natural England has also made it clear that it will draw up draft proposals, and these will include information on any exclusions and restrictions on access that it considers necessary. Natural England will also advertise the proposals and will ask for comment—it will not be hidden; it will be wide open. Everyone in the House now subscribes to the principle of transparency, and this will be more transparent than anything. It will provide the opportunity for anybody to make their views known and for those views to be taken into account by Natural England.
	The scheme that I have described, which sets out how Natural England will approach implementation of the legislation, will be consulted on, is subject to approval by the Secretary of State and will be laid before Parliament. The proposals will include details of the route and associated coastal margin, and also any exclusions or restrictions on access to land included in it. Following the publication of proposals, anyone can make representations to the Secretary of State. The representations will go to the Secretary of State in summary form, and he must take account of them in deciding whether to approve or reject the proposals, or to approve to them with modifications.
	What I am proposing is that those with a sporting right, including holders of sporting tenancies, should be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under schedule 19, so that their representations go in full rather than in summary form to the Secretary of State. In addition, experience of open access has shown that in most cases the best way to reconcile public access and sporting activities is through positive management techniques and engagement on the ground. That is the way it works. Where that is not the case, those with a sporting right will have an ongoing right to apply for restrictions and exclusions of access, where necessary, and a right of appeal if they are not put in place.
	Those with a relevant interest, as defined by section 45 of the CROW Act, which includes sporting rights, will have the same rights as they do now on CROW land, to apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management reasons. Land management can include, for instance, management of a sporting activity—including, if appropriate, the sporting activity itself or the holding of commercial events. Such sporting activities might include shooting or fishing, and those with rights that enable them to carry out these activities on access land could apply for restrictions or exclusions, if they are necessary.
	I believe—here I echo comments made by my hon. Friends—that that process has worked well under the CROW Act for open country and registered common land. We have issued a consultation paper on the new section 3A order required under the Bill. We made it clear in Committee and elsewhere that we have no intention to make changes to the categories of people who may make an application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act.
	Given that different approach for coastal land and the consultative nature of the process, and given the approach that we have set out in the Bill—along with the commitment that I am happy to reaffirm today that those with a sporting right, including those with sporting tenancies, should be specified in the regulations under schedule 19—I urge the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) once again to consider withdrawing the amendment.
	Let me deal with another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, which we touched on in Committee, about those with interests other than shooting, including issues surrounding mineral rights. I confirm that Natural England will carry out an extensive process of consultation with local interests, as I have described—land managers, local access forums, local authorities, representatives of recreational interests, wildlife interest groups and so forth. When I met the coastal access forum a few weeks ago, I promised to consider any information that it could provide me with on who might hold mineral rights. We had a useful discussion. I have not been sent anything since the meeting, but we will consider the possibility of including those with such rights in the regulations in paragraph 2(2)(f) of new schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which would be inserted under schedule 19. We will consult on those regulations in due course.
	Let me deal now with amendment 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, which would insert a new subsection into proposed new section 55E. It would oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations that would entitle a person with a relevant interest in affected land to require Natural England to undertake a review of a coastal access report on certain grounds. These may include a proposed or actual change in land use and a review of existing or proposed exclusions or restrictions of access. Applicants seeking a review would have recourse to the objections procedure set out in schedule 19, should Natural England not undertake a review or amend its report accordingly.
	I understand the concerns of the House that the coastal access provisions should not prevent future changes in land use. For this reason, I have been talking to stakeholders, explaining how the provisions will work and providing reassurance that the Bill will be implemented in a way that does not sterilise land by preventing any future changes. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I want to make it clear that we are not in the business of allowing a coastal path to mean no future development, which would go against the whole ethos of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a path on single farm payments that I am wary of treading on. It is more to do with how proposals for future land use are developed. In my own constituency, for example, an area has been designated for light industrial use for 20 years, yet there is no light industrial use on it. If we were to incorporate that sort of approach into the coastal margin, we could well end up with a coastal path or coastal margin without any integrity or coherence—a coastal path with big red lines all the way along it. There might be further proposals for every couple of miles along the path. We need to ask how one defines a proposal. Is something defined as a proposal because it features in a local development plan or a unitary development plan some years down the line? Is it a proposal if some supermarket or retailer has said that it might be interested somewhere down the line? I shall explain in more detail later why that simply would not work.
	I understand the concerns, which is why I used the term sterilised land, about the idea that if a coastal path were put in place, it would mean that no development could happen. We do not want that. On the contrary, I believe that the Bill's provisions are extremely flexible in that respect. Let me explain why I believe the necessary safeguards are in place.
	At the outset, before drawing up a report on a particular stretch of coast, Natural England will take appropriate account of any relevant local plans, such as local development plans and planned major developments, as part of its consultation with landowners, local authorities and others, including the Marine Management Organisation. As we are all aware, the MMO will be consulted on any plans that could affect the marine environment as a result of the Bill. It is likely to have a pretty good knowledge of what is coming down the track, including some of the much further afield national infrastructure developments. I encourage all those affected to engage in constructive discussions with Natural England at this early stage on the best position for the route.
	As part of the local consultations on the route and spreading room, Natural England will discuss the need for any exclusions or restrictions on access. Any necessary exclusions or restrictions will be included in Natural England's report and put in place before the right of access to that particular stretch of coast comes into effect. If circumstances change at a later date, those with an interest in the land can apply for restrictions or exclusions under sections 24 and 25 of the CROW Act —for example, for land management purposes. The flexibility is built in there.
	Once the route is implemented, under the provisions in the CROW Act, land can become excepted from the right of access at any time if some change or development occurs so that it falls into one of the excepted land categories in schedule 1 to the CROW Act. These include, for example, land covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land; land used for the purposes of railways or tramways; and land that does not fall within some other excepted land categories and is covered by works used for the purposes of a statutory undertaking.
	Paragraph 9 of that schedule makes specific provision for development in establishing a category of excepted land as follows:
	"Land as respects which development which will result in the land becoming land falling within any of paragraphs 2 to 8 is in the course of being carried out."
	Paragraphs 2 to 8 include the categories that I have already mentioned. I apologise for being so detailed on the matter, but it is important.
	In addition, it is worth reminding hon. Members that the line of the route is not fixed permanently. Powers in section 55 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 enable Natural England to review the route and associated margin and to propose changes to the Secretary of State at a later date—subject, once again, to full consultation, representation and the objections process. In those ways, the legislation is designed to take account of changes in use and future developments.
	I consider it neither appropriate nor practical that a person with a relevant interest in land should be able to require Natural England to carry out a review of a report on the basis of a proposed development, or to have recourse to the objections procedure in schedule 19 to the Bill, if Natural England does not agree to amend the report on the basis of such a proposal. At the proposal stage, it may be several years before a determination on any eventual planning application is reached—we are all familiar with that in our constituencies—or the change of use is implemented or development begun, and the final agreed development may be significantly different from the original proposal in size and shape. Such an approach, which could preclude access for some time, would not be considered fair to the local community or other users, and would not help us to deliver on our aspirations for a coastal path.
	As I have explained, if a change of use or development occurs so that land falls within one of the categories of excepted land in schedule 1 to the CROW Act, it becomes excepted from the right of access. If land over which the coastal route passes becomes excepted land, I would expect Natural England to review its report and propose a revised route so that continuity is maintained. Indeed, it would be difficult to see how Natural England would be fulfilling its coastal access duty were continuity of the path not maintained.
	I recognise the concerns of landowners and occupiers about any possible impacts of the right of access on future change of land use or development. Planning policy guidance recognises the importance of protecting and enhancing the character and landscape of undeveloped coastline and supports the provision of public access to the coast as a basic principle. However, where a coastal location is necessary for development—for example, to provide essential energy infrastructure—and access is not compatible with the development, it will be in no one's interests for the coastal route to be given undue weight in the decision. The flexible way in which the legislation will work will help to ensure that that is not the case.
	Turning to the second reason cited in the amendment for requiring Natural England to undertake a review of a report, those with a relevant interest in land may already make an application to the relevant authority for exclusions or restrictions of access under sections 24 and 25 of the CROW Act. They must also be consulted when the relevant authority is considering revoking or varying a direction made on application under sections 24 or 25. When the relevant authority does not act in accordance with such an application or a representation, there is already a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under section 30 of the Act. In many cases, the sort of developments involved will have been discussed with Natural England when the proposals for the route were drawn up. If the process and scheme of operation works as has been explained, the issue will be picked up, and a contact will be available. In other cases, the normal routes to contact Natural England—via website, post and phone—will be available. The local authority might also provide a good way of making contact, as it will often have worked on proposals for development. Given those clarifications, I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider whether he needs to press the amendment.
	Amendment 40, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for High Peak (Tom Levitt), would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within two years of the commencement of part 9 of the Act, with particular regard to the progress made on four issues—the voluntary inclusion of parkland, the inclusion of the Isle of Wight in an order under clause 295, the addition of further islands reachable by ferry under the same clause and the use of seasonal ferries as part of the coastal path under clause 296. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to append proposals to remedy shortcomings in the establishment of coastal routes that are apparent to him.
	Let me discuss the four issues, and explain why I do not consider the amendment to be necessary. First, as I made clear in Committee, I recognise that the issue of parks and gardens is important for many people—it was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and again during the Bill's passage in the other place. I have listened to the different arguments put forward. On the one hand, an individual's property rights and privacy should be protected—there has never been any withdrawal from that point of principle—and we want to make sure that the balance is right in that regard. On the other hand, the exception for parks and gardens could result in significant detours, not least where there are extensive parklands on the coast.
	We have said that we do not intend to change the category of excepted land in schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which covers parks or gardens, under which there would be no right of access to such land. There was cross-party support in Committee for our approach, in which, as I made clear, Natural England will seek to reach voluntary agreements with landowners to enable a route to be created through a park, where necessary, to provide continuity of access and to avoid a significant inland diversion. Hon. Members have related their experiences of being diverted miles inland to a route that certainly could not be defined as a coastal walk.
	I have asked Natural England to try to secure access along the route by voluntary means, and in particular through the dedication of land for public access under the CROW Act provisions. The system that I have set out should be given a trial, which should investigate how great the problems are and how evident the good will of landowners and occupiers of parks is. Subsequent to our debate in Committee, individual landowners or representative bodies whom I have met have been clear that they are expected to deliver on that undertaking in a voluntary way. I recently met the coastal access forum, which includes representatives from a number of organisations such as the CLA and the Historic Houses Association, and they assured me, and have subsequently written, that they will work constructively with Natural England in such cases where parks abut the coast. However, it will be important that Parliament monitors the effectiveness of the voluntary approach proposed. Natural England has therefore been tasked to keep the matter under review.
	We have already said that Natural England will report to Parliament on progress of the implementation of the route after 10 years. In addition, as I promised in Committee, I have asked it to undertake an earlier interim review and to report to Parliament specifically on issues that have arisen as a result of parks being excepted land, and on the success of any voluntary agreements to ensure public access along the route through parks. Although it is not a requirement in the Bill, we have asked that that report should take place within five years of Royal Assent. I also made it clear in Committee that the Secretary of State could amend the exception for parks and gardens if satisfactory progress is not made and significant issues remain. That would be subject to the affirmative procedure; it would not require primary legislation, but it would need to be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
	Let me make it clear that my proposals do not represent a pendulum, or an axe, swinging over landowners. Let me also say, however, that in Committee and in the changes that we have made to the Bill we have made clear our intention to open access—where we can—to some of the coastal gems that could be described as the jam in the doughnut. I believe that there is a willingness to do that, but I also believe that we must all work collectively, in the House and outside, to ensure that it is done.
	We have already made a commitment, in Committee, to take steps to include the Isle of Wight in an order which will be subject to consultation: the legislation will not be rammed down people's throats. Natural England will consider other islands that cannot be reached on foot—again, after local discussion and consultation. I believe it is appropriate for islands that cannot be reached on foot to be considered individually, because all our islands are singularly different from each other.
	As for other islands that may be reached by ferry, I know that the question of whether Lundy will be included has been raised before. The island is hugely attractive and people—including me—love to go there, but access to it is limited owing to the lack of any regular ferry service. I am aware that there may be a case for including it in due course, but Natural England will need to engage in detailed discussions with the National Trust and the Landmark Trust before we reach a decision.
	I assure Members that I shall be happy to report back to Parliament on progress relating to the inclusion of other islands. I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to include in the Bill a requirement such as that proposed in the amendment, but I think I have made it pretty clear that we have not only provided powers in the Bill but would like access to be available—subject to consultation, as with the Isle of Wight.
	My hon. Friends raised the important issue of seasonal ferries. Provisions in clause 296 enable Natural England to make a proposal to the Secretary of State on any estuary. It may propose that the route should stop at the mouth of the estuary, that it should stop at any point between the mouth of an estuary and the first public foot crossing—either a bridge or a tunnel—or that it should extend as far as the first public foot crossing. In deciding on such proposals, Natural England must have regard to considerations in clause 292(2) and a number of matters set out in clause 296(4), including the existence of a ferry by which the public may cross the river. At all times when discharging the coastal access duty, Natural England must aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access over land and the interests of owners and occupiers.
	As I have said, Natural England will be required to undertake an extensive process of consultation with local interests as it develops its proposals. Estuaries will be an important issue for many areas. For example, the coasts of Essex and Suffolk and those of Devon and Cornwall are indented by estuaries. Natural England's discussions with local interests—which will include land managers, local access forums, local authorities, and wildlife and other interest groups—will be a key part of its approach, and the success of the design of the access corridor.
	A proposal in a coastal access report relating to whether a particular estuary should be included up to the first pedestrian crossing point will be included on a case-by-case basis, and Natural England will consider that in the light of the detailed criteria in the Bill. I should make it clear, however, that we would not normally expect Natural England to stop the route at the starting point for a ferry that does not run throughout the year unless particular difficulties are involved in taking the route further upstream to the first public crossing. The Secretary of State will examine all the issues involved—including whether the use of a seasonal ferry for the route is appropriate—before making a decision on the report.
	Natural England will prepare its coastal access reports over the 10-year implementation period, and will state in those reports where the existence of a ferry by which the public may cross the river has been a major consideration in its decision for the coastal route in any particular estuary. As I have said, Natural England will report to Parliament on the implementation of the route after 10 years. If the Secretary of State thinks that an earlier report should be made, he or she may ask it to make one, but I do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the Bill to include such a requirement. Clause 294 requires Natural England to complete a review of the scheme within three years of its first being approved by the Secretary of State, and I would expect such a review to cover the matters that the amendment seeks to require the report to include. Given that requirement, along with the requirement for a report after five years in regard to parks and gardens and the report to Parliament after 10 years, I urge Members not to press their amendments.
	Amendment 37 seeks to remove clause 300, which states:
	"No duty of care is owed by Natural England"
	or anyone acting on its behalf
	"under the law of negligence... when preparing"
	or proposing the coastal route, in connection with any failure by Natural England to erect signs warning of hazards or in connection with any failure by it to restrict or exclude access. It also states:
	"No duty of care is owed by the Secretary of State... under the law of negligence when... approving proposals"
	for a coastal long-distance route or giving direction for the variation of such proposals
	The matter was debated extensively in the other place. As Lord Hunt of King's Heath noted, we doubt that a court would impose such a duty of care, and the aim of clause 300 is to clarify the legal position. Let us be frank. We recognise that in places the coast is inherently dangerous, and we do not want uncertainty about the legal position to give rise to an over-cautious or nannyish approach that could result in warning signs unnecessarily dotting the landscape. That would be in no one's interest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I fully agree with my hon. Friend on that. These provisions work very well.
	I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough as a result of her representations on behalf of the British Mountaineering Council, the Ramblers and others, and I just want to put the following points on the record. I recognise that, as with open access, there may be occasions when access on the coast might cause a problem, and Natural England will have to consider the need for any restrictions or exclusions. These restrictions will be considered as part of Natural England's coastal report, which has to be approved by the Secretary of State. The Bill requires Natural England to prepare a scheme setting out the approach it will take to discharge its coastal access duty, which must be approved by the Secretary of State. Natural England will shortly consult on a draft of the scheme, and will establish that in any case in which it decides that action is necessary, its policy will be to adopt the option that is least restrictive of public access.
	The hon. Member for North Essex asked whether the Secretary of State can do anything to give access to relevant excepted land. Such land is normally excepted for very good reasons. The key is to get the categories of excepted land right—we have been talking about that in this debate. That is why we are currently consulting on the appropriate categories of excepted land for coastal access. I hope the hon. Gentleman will contribute to that discussion and make suggestions as to the changes that we might propose, such as those to the categories of excepted land under schedule 1 of the CROW Act. Certain categories of excepted land are not access land for the purpose of part 1 so we have made some proposals.
	First, we propose to remove some existing categories of excepted land that we do not think are appropriate for the coastal margin. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to offer his thoughts on that. Secondly, we propose to amend some of the existing categories to allow for the coastal route to go through them. That will be of relevance to many Members who are keen golfers. Thirdly, we propose to add some new categories appropriate to the circumstances of the coastal margin, such as formal camp and caravan sites. We also seek views on these published guidelines and on the meaning of the existing categories. I hope that is of some help to the hon. Gentleman as he has identified a relevant point, but this Bill and the reform of some of the excepted land categories offer us the opportunity to make the sort of changes to which he refers.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for that tour de force, which went into some detail.
	The Minister's earlier remarks on my amendment 35 left me mildly piqued. He seemed to suggest that I was intending by this measure to trash the whole concept of a coastal margin, but nothing could have been further from my intentions. I was seeking to be honest and transparent—as he says, we in this House are all interested in that at this moment—and in trying to be frank with people. We are not saying that there will be coastal margin everywhere in the delivery of this path. I was on holiday this summer in the north Norfolk area. As the Minister might know, there is a narrow strip of beach in many parts of north Norfolk, with a few dunes and then a vast area of marsh, before coming to solid land with houses, gardens and fields. As I looked at this, fresh from the Committee, I was struck by how difficult it would be to deliver in these areas coastal margin access that was either safe or practical. Through amendment 35, I was just trying to create some clarity and honesty. The Minister's remarks, which are on the record, have helped in that respect and I am not going to push the amendment.
	On amendments 32 and 33, I pay tribute to the Minister for his Herculean efforts in seeking to find a greater degree of understanding and agreement on this issue; he should take the credit for that. His meeting with the relevant bodies has gone a long way towards clarifying the situation. I may have got it wrong, but I think he went a little further in his remarks today than he originally did. Specifying in regulations in schedule 19 is a major step forward. It secures the position of a whole range of interests in the land. I am grateful for his further comments relating not just to sporting interests but to those with mineral rights or options for such rights, for example. They will be reassured by his comments, so this is a major step forward.
	On amendment 34 and the change of use, the Minister said that this provision would be implemented in a way that does not sterilise land. That is really important. Land should not be sealed in aspic; it should be constantly evolving. A whole range of options are open to land managers; they do not want them to be stifled by what could effectively be a charge on the land, which would prevent them from going down such routes.
	I do not understand why an exclusion around agricultural buildings could not have been included in the Bill, as it was in the CROW Act. If we have learned one thing from foot and mouth and other more recent problems, it is that biosecurity is very important. A 20-metre exclusion around farm buildings would have been a good thing; however, I am not going to press the matter.
	The Minister talked about exclusions, which have been used very effectively under CROW by a whole range of different land managers. The problem is that it is a big ask of walkers. Before going for a walk in the country, are people really going to sit down, log on to the local authority website, see which landowner has an exclusion because of lambing or nesting, for example, and find out where their land starts and finishes? It is asking a lot of people to follow through that process.
	On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—he told us about the rescue of an injured person—although the Health and Safety Executive has caused this problem, it could be the solution in that it might now say that action has to be taken to resolve such problems. However, this is a very important case study that shows how pressure points will be applied to this legislation. They will be resolved best locally, by local people and with the involvement of organisations such as local access forums and local authorities.
	The Minister made some sensible suggestions in respect of amendment 40, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—he is not in his place—heard them.
	On the debate concerning parks and gardens, we discovered in Committee, as was discovered with the CROW Act, that a lawyer's charter can be created, with lawyers dancing on the head of a pin in trying to describe where a garden finishes and a park begins. Of course, when thinking about the Bill, hon. Members have in their minds landscapes by Repton or Capability Brown—vast landscapes miles away from any residents. However, we have to secure basic rights of privacy. We have to recognise that the wording is very difficult to get right, and the Minister is right to keep that exclusion in, albeit with his caveats about hoping to achieve more access.
	The Minister said that this is not a sword of Damocles over landowners' heads. In Committee, a particular landowner was mentioned in relation to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. I have had conversations with that estate since, and it is taking the matter very seriously; for example, it makes considerable efforts to achieve public access in areas such as education. The language in these debates can easily demonise people who are in fact doing immense work to achieve greater understanding about the countryside and greater access for all sorts of people. The Minister's words will be well heard.
	Estuaries are very complicated areas to which to deliver access. There tends to be a greater level of occupation: more activity going, more boatyards, more slipways and more residential areas. I liked the phrase that the Minister used—that this will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Again, we are putting a lot of hope in the idea that Natural England will approach this issue in the right way. All my discussions with it suggest that it will, but there will undoubtedly be problems and the Minister will on occasion be required to solve them. A three-year review of progress gives us an opportunity to see whether what the Minister wants—and we all want—is happening: greater access to the countryside.
	On amendment 37 and liability, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the legal position. He said that we do not want to see an over-cautious approach to the issue of access to countryside. We live in a litigious society. Cycling and equestrian clubs now get members to sign disclaimers before any activity can take place. The degree of bureaucracy is becoming absurd, and to it can be added Criminal Records Bureau checks and the other checks that such organisations have to go through. We do not want to add an horrendous new tier of liability to the process of simply getting out and enjoying the countryside and coastal Britain. Of course, the Minister reminded us that under clause 292(2), Natural England and the Secretary of State
	"must have regard to...the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route".
	With that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment and allow the Bill to proceed to the next phase.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

'The Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers must take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate the impact on fishing and other existing activities resulting from the designation and management of an MCZ.'.— (Mr. Austin Mitchell.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 18, in clause 124, page 83, line 40, at end insert—
	'(ea) the extent to which, in the opinion of the authority, the operation of the MCZs have had an impact upon the marine economy in general and the commercial and recreational fishing industry in particular;'.
	Amendment 44, page 83, line 43, at end insert—
	'(2A) The appropriate authority must also make annual assessments of the cost and impact of the MCZs to the fishing industry and submit these to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers who must manage and mitigate such effects.'.
	Amendment 24, in clause 141, page 95, line 44, at end insert—
	'(g) was done by a person fishing in a responsible manner within an MCZ and the act resulted in damage which that person could not have avoided.'.
	Amendment 28, page 96, line 9, at end insert—
	'(b) the act occurred on the seaward side of the 0-6 nautical mile fisheries zone in a location where foreign vessels have fishing rights, and'.
	Amendment 23, page 96, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
	'(b) (i) the person was aware of the protected feature in question;
	(ii) there was no intention of causing damage to a protected feature; and
	(iii) they took all reasonable steps to avoid causing damage or a contravention.'.
	Government amendment 5.
	Amendment 42, page 96, line 11, at end insert—
	'(4A) The Secretary of State must make regulations by statutory instrument that make provision for the equal treatment of—
	(a) UK registered vessels,
	(b) other EU registered vessels and
	(c) third country vessels,
	in relation to the contravention of byelaws and offences under sections 129 to 141.'.
	Amendment 29, page 96, line 21, at end insert—
	' "foreign vessel" means any vessel other than a relevant British vessel, Scottish fishing boat or a Northern Ireland fishing boat.'.
	Amendment 17, in clause 229, page 145, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
	Government amendment 13.
	Amendment 15, in clause 66, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
	'(c) no item applies to any form of fishing activity.'.
	Amendment 36, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
	'(c) nothing therein shall be taken to apply to any form of commercial sea fishing by any method.'.
	Amendment 41, page 45, line 8, at end insert—
	'(5) For the purposes of this Part, a licence granted under section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 is a marine licence permitting the holder to carry on marine activity to the extent permitted by the licence conditions permitted under that Act.'.
	Government amendments 9 and 14.

Austin Mitchell: I wish to discuss not only new clause 8, but amendments 41, 17, 15 and 24. I wish to do so because of a concern for the interests of commercial fishing, which remain a factor, although not as big a one as before, in the health and prosperity of Grimsby. They are more important to communities up and down the coast—many of them isolated—in which fishing is the main industry. Their needs, views and industry need to be taken into account more effectively than they have been. I wish that some of the passion, enthusiasm, interest and involvement that have just been shown in discussion of the rights of coastal access in the Bill were also demonstrated in concern for fishing, because it is a more important activity to this country economically. The industry employs 13,000 people on the catching side, 26,000 in processing and 40,000 in distribution, it contributes about £6 billion a year to the national economy and, as I said, it is particularly important to remote communities.
	The Bill affects fishing in many ways. It is primarily a Bill that has been pushed by non-governmental organisations—the conservation and environmentalist groups—and, in a sense, it is too far weighted towards them and insufficiently weighted towards preserving the interests of fishing as an existing activity. Even I—the MP for Great Grimsby—have been deluged with cards telling me, "These marine conservation zones should be extended to a quarter, a third or even more of the North sea." I have replied by asking these people, who are from Grimsby, whether they had not realised that it is a commercial fishing port with an interest in fishing in these zones. Members have gone around telling schools that the interests of fishing should be precluded altogether and that fishing should be stopped because we are endangering stocks.
	The Bill is primarily about conserving the marine environment; it is not a Bill for controlling or regulating fishing. We need to make that absolutely clear, because it cannot do both—indeed, it should not do both, because the fishing industry has a major interest in conservation. It is one of the natural agencies that Governments should look to and be concerned with, because its interests are in conservation, in sustainable fishing and in maintaining a resource on which the livelihoods of fishermen depend and which they want to hand on to their children and to their area. That interest has to be taken into account. This Bill should not be seen instead as yet another restriction on fishing—commercial fishing in particular—which has been harassed and weighed down with regulations, controls, quotas, limits, the days at sea limitation and exclusion from certain areas and certain stocks to the point where it has become desperate.
	We cannot use this Bill to impose another series of controls on fishing, because that would alienate the fishing industry. Such an approach would fail to generate the enthusiasm for conservation that exists within the industry and would fail to use fishing as a means of ensuring proper conservation. The fishing industry wants to build up stocks and avoid damage, and, in that sense, it has the same interest in conservation as the Bill. Like New Zealand, whose marine conservation areas are perhaps more natural than ours because they are based on reefs—the more natural way of having conservation areas—this country's approach, in this Bill, should be based on consulting and involving the fishing industry. I want the Minister to take that approach and I know that he wants to achieve that end too.
	We are dealing with an area in which scientific knowledge is inadequate; we do not have scientific knowledge about the marine conservation areas, about the sea or about what is underneath the surface. The fishing industry has more knowledge than the scientists, so it should be involved not only when consulting on what is decided in the Bill, but in policing that and in reporting to the Minister and the authorities about what is going on in these areas. Anything that restricts fishing weakens that superintending role and the conservation concern that the industry has; anything that weakens fishing weakens conservation. That is why I wish to include in the Bill some of these safeguards that have been mentioned.
	I should mention that the responsible fisheries schemes, which have been energetically, and rightly, promoted by Seafish, now have the support of 44 per cent. of the fishing industry—by weight of vessel. That demonstrates the degree of involvement of the fishing industry in the conservation issue.

Austin Mitchell: I am defending the interests of fishing as an industry and as a leisure activity—I would have thought that my hon. Friend would have supported that. My assertion is that fishing is an agent of conservation, and one cannot have marine conservation areas, which are intended primarily to conserve the marine environment, by also placing added restrictions on fishing. That defeats the purpose of the marine conservation areas.

Austin Mitchell: Fishing might have overextended its ambitions there, but that has nothing to do with this and nor has the conservation of cod stocks anything to do with this Bill. We are talking about the conservation of the marine environment. This is not a measure that deals with the conservation of stocks. Any attempt to impose that on this measure will defeat the measure, because it will alienate the fishing industry, which is an agent of conservation. We have a very changed fishing industry now; it is on a much smaller scale, it is much more based on sustainable fishing and, as I said, it is committed to responsible fishing. My hon. Friend, in trying to produce a gulf between his anglers, whom he has worked so hard to protect, and commercial fishing, is doing the whole issue a disservice, because their interests are very much the same. An interest in conservation is an interest in keeping fishing at a sustainable level in a sustainable way. That is what I am arguing today. He is making an entirely artificial distinction, which makes me take a detour from my main purpose, which is to argue for the interests of fishing. By that, I mean his kind of fishing, and my kind of fishing or Grimsby's kind of fishing—commercial fishing.
	I return to these amendments, many of which are similar to those moved by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who is the vice chair of the all-party group on fisheries—I am its chair. Our interests are common and we work in the same way, except that he tends to run with the fishing fox and hunt with the conservation hounds. That is understandable, because he is a Liberal Democrat and, thus, naturally confused about his objectives. I do not think that we are sharply opposed, but it is difficult to have it both ways on this issue.

Austin Mitchell: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I should not have made jibes; I am stirred to such anger and passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) that I am lashing out in all directions. That was very naughty of me and I think we should blame my hon. Friend, not me, for that.
	As the hon. Member for St. Ives says, the designation and the management of the regimes associated with marine conservation zones will impose significant costs on fishing activities. They will vary according to the size, nature and designation of the zone, but the regulatory impact assessment estimates that impacts on fisheries will be worth between £157 million and £346 million over 20 years. That can be found in table 8 on page 34 of the impact assessment. That will be a significant cost for fishing and it cannot be right or fair, if those impacts on fishing are to be produced by the Bill, for fishing to be expected to bear those costs without some intervention from the Government.
	The Bill as drafted does not place any obligation on Government to manage the losses resulting from such impacts or the loss of fishing rights. For that reason, I want a duty imposed on the Minister to manage and mitigate such effects on fishermen, because I think that it is important to the industry to give it such a guarantee. That is the basis of new clause 8. Amendment 44 is very similar and calls for estimated costs to be assessed. We need to know what the impact on fishing will be and what costs will be imposed on the industry by the fishing zones.
	Amendment 24 concerns what is generally called the fishing defence. In other words, when accidental damage is done in the course of fishing—we do not advocate that deliberate damage could or should be done by fishing—there should be a defence on the grounds that the damage could not have been avoided, if a fisherman was acting responsibly and fishing within a zone under the provisions of the byelaws or conservation orders. We need a defence that protects against accidental damage for those who are fishing, which is a traditional activity that has always gone on in these zones and that is to a degree threatened by them. The measure will not protect in cases of intentional or reckless damage; it is merely a safeguard for those who are fishing in accordance with the existing fishing regimes and management plans should they cause accidental damage. Without that protection, fishermen might consider that the risks of fishing in a marine conservation zone are too great. Effectively, it could become a no-fish zone, adding to the huge restrictions that operate in areas around our coast. I would not want that to happen. Fishing needs some kind of guarantee and protection.
	Amendment 42, tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives, echoes a number of amendments that I tabled less successfully. It says that there should be a level playing field between British and European vessels. That is an important principle. My amendments were probably rejected because those in the Table Office and their associated psychologists know that whenever the common fisheries policy is mentioned I froth at the mouth and become incomprehensible. To protect the House and to protect me, they did not select my amendments. They selected those of the hon. Gentleman and I am delighted that they did. We cannot have a situation in which British fishermen are excluded because an area is designated as a marine conservation zone whereas European fishermen—either because they have historical rights or because they are fishing under the basic principle of quotas allocated by Brussels and the basic principle of equal access to a common resource, which has been the ruin of the British fishing industry—and others can continue to fish. Such a regime could not be enforced—fishing would not accept it, and it would be disastrous.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this amendment. He must have steeled himself up to a degree of anti-European enthusiasm that is uncharacteristic of his party—I should not make jibes, I am sorry; he does not need to respond. I congratulate him, because it concerns an important basic principle. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that any restrictions on fishing will not come into force until they apply uniformly to all fishermen, be they European or of other nationalities or be they British. We cannot have a regime that is enforced unilaterally on British fishermen.

Austin Mitchell: Yes, but I am not sure what follows from that. If fishing is to be totally excluded from the French conservation zones, I would not want it to be excluded from our conservation zones. I am not sure that there is a quid pro quo there, but both systems have to be treated the same, and fishermen in our areas must be treated the same as European fishermen. The basic principle is clear.
	I come now to the masterpiece of my speech. I am glad that it has been so entertaining, but I am extremely concerned that the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771 should not be deleted, as proposed in the Bill, and I say that not only as an historian and natural defender of old—the Minister would say otiose—laws. He will note that opposition to the repeal of the Act comes from all sides of the House and from all parties that supported my amendment, and is strongly felt by the fishing industry. That is the most important point. We discussed the matter with the Minister, who told us that the law is irrelevant and that its repeal was part of the process of clearing the broom cupboard of unnecessary legislation.
	Fishermen see the 1771 Act as a protection of their rights. It is an exciting Act; we should read it some time. It provides a legal right for British fishermen to use all UK ports and harbours, which is an important principle to maintain. It allows fishermen to draw their boats up on the beaches, which is particularly important in areas such as Hastings, where there has been friction about bringing the boats up on to the beaches. The Act provides the legal right for fishing vessels to use wasteland for storage purposes—all exciting stuff. Given that all the fishing organisations have argued against its repeal and want the Act maintained, I do not see that it is necessary to scrub it.
	I ask the Minister to reconsider and to keep the white herring fisheries flag flying because of the importance attached to it by the fishing industry. I draw his attention to the fact that all parties in the House oppose the repeal. It is not appropriate that the Act should be repealed, given the rights that it gives to maintain access for fisheries around the coast. Keeping it would not contradict any other provisions of the Bill, so why not keep it?
	My last amendment is amendment 15, which is very similar to amendment 41 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran). He is a lawyer and I am not, so his opinion is likely to be more valuable, interesting and important than mine. I speak from a concern for fishing. He brings legal expertise to the matter. We want to exclude fishing from the list of restricted activities in the conservation zones. There is no reason why fishing should be on the list. Fishing is exercising its traditional right. Fishermen have always fished these areas.
	The Bill is not about conserving fish stocks. It is about conserving the marine environment, which is not damaged—I repeat, for the benefit of Reading listeners—by fishing. It is conserved by fishing. It is therefore legitimate to exclude fishing from the restrictions imposed. That is what amendment 15 and, more eloquently, amendment 41 would do. If fishing needs a licence, as it does, it should be excluded from the restrictions imposed in marine conservation zones.
	That is the list of amendments that I wished to speak to. The common thread, which will emerge in the next group as well, is a concern to clarify and sustain the interests of fishing, which has a real concern about conservation and should be mobilised for the Bill, not restricted and damaged by it. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has consulted closely both with the industry and with the all-party fisheries group, has the interests of fishing at heart, but I would like him to give us assurances before we decide whether to withdraw or pursue the amendments. I do not want to be disruptive in any way. That is not my disposition.
	We need to clarify and assert the interests of fishing. I hope the Minister can give us some guarantees against the anxieties that I have spoken about, and guarantees about the position of fishing. I trust my hon. Friend, who has done a brilliant job in consulting and carrying the industry with him. I hope he can give us some kind of assurances before we decide on the fate of the amendments.

Richard Benyon: The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) are very interesting and, in some cases, very similar to those that I submitted about 30 seconds after he did. We will come to those later.
	On new clause 8, the impact on the fishing industry is a fundamental consideration. Groups of fishermen that I have met over recent months have all been acutely aware that without the conservation measures that they are already implementing, such as real-time closures, targets on discards—in some cases, those targets have been extremely successful, although there is an enormous amount of work to do—and technical measures, the future of the industry would be far more bleak.
	Marine conservation zones are a fundamental part of my desire for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are fishing today to have a job tomorrow, and to be able to do the important work that fishermen do in addressing issues such as food security, obesity, and healthy eating. It is vital that we address the concerns about the marine environment and ensure a long-term future for a variety of socio-economic activities, of which fishing is the primary one in our minds.

Richard Benyon: I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman has pointed out—just as we can get this issue right, we can get this issue wrong. When I last checked, however, his party was actually in government in Scotland, so it needs to rein in the SNH, if the SNH is really driving his people out of business.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Austin Mitchell: rose—

Richard Benyon: One benefit of the Lundy island case is that shellfish, for example, have increased in size and are more productive in areas just outside the no-take zone. There has been a benefit in terms of stock. In terms of marine conservation zones, we should identify the spawning beds of at-risk stocks. That is an entirely legitimate activity. This is an interesting debate, but perhaps we should return to the specifics of the new clauses and amendments.
	Socio-economic factors are already a part of the designation process for MCZs, and we absolutely must not tip the balance too far in one direction or another; we should keep it structured between the demands of a socio-economic and legitimate activity, such as fishing, leisure boating and all the other important activities that support our coastal communities, and the needs of conservation. Equally, however, those needs must be credible to all sides, and we sought at every point to develop that balance in Committee.
	Sometimes the balance will not be struck, so we need to work on the basis of best practice, and that is already under way. I recently met the chief executive of Natural England, and I sought reassurances from her about the process of designation. If Natural England is as good as its word, fishing communities will be at the centre of the process. My party and I see fishermen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. No one will hear me demonise fishermen—particularly not the coastal fleet, which, as one of the most sustainably minded groups of fishermen anywhere in Europe, is moving fast towards accreditation under the Marine Stewardship Council.
	The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) has tabled an amendment that he will no doubt discuss. I am inclined to support its general thrust, because I understand the spirit of it. Clause 124 is really important, because it allows the Government, through a transparent process, to look at each MCZ and ask what it is designated to achieve; what feature it seeks to protect, which may address some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby; and, what should be done if it is failing to achieve that objective. One could argue that the clause is missing a requirement to state accurately how the success or otherwise of the management of a marine conservation zone is measured, however.
	Clause 124(2) notes that the report that will be submitted annually must contain
	"the conservation objectives which have been stated for the MCZ...the extent to which...the conservation objectives stated for each MCZ which it has designated have been achieved"
	and
	"any further steps which, in the opinion of the authority, are required to be taken."
	I was impressed by North sea regional advisory council proposal that very simple tests be applied to marine conservation zones. Broadly speaking, that means most of the Bill, but a little more, including: what we are seeking to protect; how our ability to protect a feature or species is measured; and, whether there is an exit route. I do not necessarily mean that we should dissolve an MCZ, although that option may have to be considered, but we may have to move one.
	We know that a lot is happening in the North sea, including changes to sea temperatures, cod moving further north, the availability of cocopods at particular times of year and acidification, and we have to be fast on our feet to ensure that any conservation measures work. They have to be embedded in what fishermen already do, such as in real-time closures and other conservation benefits.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In a recent European Committee sitting, I was amazed to read "success" and "common fisheries policy" in the same sentence. It was an act of audacity which left me breathless. I would not have started from this point, but what we try to achieve must be linked at every stage with CFP reform. I know that the Minister sees that, and, from my conversations with Commissioner Borg, I certainly think that he gets it, because in my last meeting with him he referred to the CFP as a "disaster". I shall no doubt be accused of breathtaking naivety to believe that CFP reform is possible, but I really believe that it is, because, with the growth of the European Union, the CFP cannot continue in its current form.
	I shall return to the case in point, because this aspect of the Bill is about nature conservation, fishermen and conservationists. Both groups understand that fishing activities have to change in certain areas if we are to achieve a sustainable future for our fisheries. We agree that the impact on the marine environment and on the recreational fishing industry should be considered when implementing MCZs, but enshrining that point in the Bill might water down the environmental thrust of MCZs and, ultimately, threaten the industry, too.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made some interesting points on amendment 24, but I repeat my argument that altering the Bill in that way would allow the irresponsible few to damage the future of our fisheries. However, the vast majority of our fishermen would not do that. MCZs are being introduced for a reason, and some of them will be no-take zones. Such zones will need to be flexible and subject to change if improvement occurs, and they absolutely must be upheld where they are needed.
	I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about his amendment, which comes at the issue from another direction. It is very much from the left side—not politically, but more in the football context. I believe that the measure would disadvantage our fishermen by making the sea fisheries defence apply only to UK vessels. A balance is needed here. Irresponsible fishermen need to be held to account, and responsible fishermen, who want a sustainable future for our seas as much as the conservationists, should not be unduly punished. The last thing that I want us to do is impose measures that protect the seas only from our fishermen and allow others to fish in our waters.

David Davis: I find myself in the unusual position of coming from the left field, as my hon. Friend describes it, because I cannot see how what he has just said—that we must have some MCZs that are effectively no-take zones—is consistent with having an absolute sea fisheries defence. Surely, those ideas are not consistent. Can he lead the debate on how these issues could be dealt with through the development of the common fisheries policy in the reforms of the next few years?

Richard Benyon: Looking at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that I shall have to use my words carefully to keep them relevant. The reform of the CFP, which has to run parallel to our attempts in this Bill, is vital. The European Commission's green paper talks about having much more localised control and about pushing power down, away from the micro-management that has failed at every stage, toward a much more devolved power. In that way, local people such as fishermen could take responsibility for the management of their industry and say, "These are the measures we are going to bring in; we are going to get Marine Stewardship Council accreditation; these are the technical measures we are going to adopt; this is our target for discards; this is the market we are going to produce; and these are the relevant organisations—the scientific bodies and the university—we are dealing with." That would allow fishermen to take back control of their industry. There is a direction of travel in the EU's green paper. I am sure that in thinking that the CFP can be reformed, I will be open to all sorts of accusations, such as that I am showing breathtaking naivety, but let us give it a crack. We have to achieve our aims by 2012, and the direction of travel is very much in our favour.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to say that I have not at any stage supported or praised the CFP. Indeed, I have nothing but contempt for it, because it has failed to conserve fish or enhance the fishing industry. I want a very different policy to emerge from this process. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. If I may say so, for someone who is so experienced in these matters, he betrays an ignorance about what the Bill is intended to achieve.
	As I have said, I am not in the game of demonising fishermen, and I believe that they have an important role to play in marine conservation. However, I am concerned about the irresponsible, dishonest few who do not understand the damage that unsustainable fishing practices are doing to our planet. It is the activities of those individuals that the Bill must address, not those of law-abiding people or of people who, through no fault of their own—perhaps because of the weather—find themselves fishing in an MCZ. There should be measures in the Bill to protect them, and I urge the Minister to read the relevant clause. I would prefer to see this matter addressed as part of the CFP reforms in 2012. That seemed to be the direction of travel that the Minister was taking in Committee, and I seek his reassurance that that is still the case.
	On Government amendment 5, I note that we raised concerns in Committee about the sea fishing defence. The amendment gives reassurance that the Minister will address the loophole. We are glad that the loophole is being addressed, so we support the amendment.
	We agree with the sentiment of amendment 42, but we also have concerns. Foreign vessels should be subject to the same rules as UK vessels. We are bound by the CFP in this area. This is an important issue, and there are legal issues to consider. We need to push this matter in relation to CFP reform. If the conservation measures in the Bill are to be truly effective, we must ensure that they are respected by all vessels operating in this area, whether foreign or UK.
	I support the sentiment behind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby's amendment 17, which is very similar to one that we had tried to introduce, regarding the fascinating White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. In the interests of rationalising legislation, the Bill will repeal that law along with a number of others. He has rightly referred to Hastings. I was in Hastings all day on Thursday to hear about the level of crisis in the community, and about how people are clinging on by their fingernails. Hastings has the largest beach-launched fishery in Europe, and those people want to know that the Bill provides for them. The 1771 Act provides British fishermen with the legal right to use all UK ports and harbours, allows fishermen to draw their boats up on the beaches and provides fishing vessels with the legal right to use wasteland for storage purposes. For the sake of rationalising legislation, it is not appropriate to repeal the 1771 Act, given the rights that it affords to maintain access to fisheries around the coast. Furthermore, maintaining that legislation is not contrary to any other measure in the Bill. No other part of the Bill extends the statutory rights that would be lost, so the proposed repeal should be withdrawn.
	The hon. Gentleman's amendment 15 and our amendment 36 try to achieve the same thing, so although we might disagree on some things, we agree on others. At this late stage in the Bill's passage, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has suggested that clause 66(1) would apply to fishing activity. This issue is an important concern for fishing communities. The right to fish in the UK is a public right, and its exercise should not require, constitutionally, a licence. If it does not require a licence, it cannot subsequently be exempted under subsection (3). To avoid any doubt, the non-application of this measure to a fishing activity must appear in primary legislation. If anyone is worried that I am asking for a completely de-regulated fishing industry, that is not what I am saying. In any event, the ability to deploy fishing gear is strictly controllable through other legislation. To apply this measure to it as well would mean that fishing boats having to comply with two licensing regimes, which would complicate, rather than streamline, licensing for fishing.

Frank Doran: Now that I am rising to speak, I think that we are to hear a full set of office-bearers from the all-party fisheries group, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) will probably speak later.
	For those of us who represent fishing communities, it is important that we protect and argue for our industry, and we must make it clear—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) takes the same view—that we welcome the Bill. It is important to get it right, but we must also take account of all the stakeholders, the key stakeholders being those in the fishing industry. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who tends to put a lot of vitality into all the campaigns that he fights. I appreciate that. However, Reading is a long way from having a fishing industry and a real understanding of how it operates.
	I was interested, too, to hear the measured approach taken by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), which is a welcome relief from what we are used to hearing from Conservative Front Benchers in any debate involving the fishing industry: basically, a call for UDI—a unilateral declaration of independence from Europe. I think that we all share the same view on the CFP, which has not been good for the industry anywhere in Europe, and far less here in the UK. However, their previous position was not sensible, and I am pleased that they are moving towards a much more appropriate one.
	I wish to speak principally in support of amendment 41, which I tabled, and amendment 17, which I signed, but also in support, more or less, of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. I do not foam at the mouth when the CFP is mentioned, as I hope to make clear.

Frank Doran: rose—

Frank Doran: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I would just point out that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) has only just arrived in the debate and that I did not say anything suggesting that I supported the CFP, which has failed the British industry. The Government, now with the support of the Opposition, are well on the way to dealing with the issues. Negotiations in Europe are the way forward.
	In speaking in support of amendment 41, I want generally to try to ensure that the interests of the fishing industry are properly taken account of. My amendment links the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 with the Bill to underline the fact that the industry already has its own licensing system. There is a huge amount of bureaucracy. I get the Scottish Fishermen's Federation diary every year, and the first few hundred pages are taken up with the rules—all the legislation—that the fishing industry has to comply with. It is a very complex area, and one that I would have been reluctant to tackle in my own days as a legal practitioner. The industry has its own licensing system, it is heavily policed and controlled, and it is subject not only to UK legislation but to EU directives under the CFP.
	Clause 66 looks as though it will impose another layer of licensing on top of that which already exists. I do not know whether it is possible to find some compatibility with the 1967 Act, or how the problem could be mitigated beyond excluding the fishing industry in the way that I and others have suggested. For centuries, fishing has been seen as an essential public right. Now that the industry is so heavily policed and controlled under our own UK licensing regime and European law, there is a heavy weight of regulation, and in these difficult times it does not need any more. The industry is important to the economy, particularly to rural communities around the country where fishing and fish processing are vital to the stability of the community. It needs more certainty, not less, and that it is what it is looking for.
	I hope that the Minister, and those of my colleagues who are on the other side of this argument, will understand that, certainly in Scotland, where my main experience lies, there has been a huge shift in the attitude of the fishing industry towards more sustainable methods of fishing and an industry-wide recognition that protecting the environment is crucial to the maintenance of fish stocks. There is strong support from the industry for the Bill and for the equivalent legislation that will be produced in the Scottish Parliament. The industry wants to be part of the process that protects the marine environment, which will be strengthened by the Bill. I hope that the Minister can spell out exactly how industry interests will be met in the operation of marine conservation zones.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned my legal background in referring to clause 229, which is a standard repeal clause. As a lawyer, I will be pedantic and dig into it a little. At first sight, the repeal of any Act from the 18th century would appear to be a necessary tidying up. However, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, having taken legal advice, has come to the strong view that the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771 should be retained. In its view, it gives fundamental rights to fishermen: the right to fish and various others. I got myself a copy of the statute, or the bits of it that are still in force, and—this is where I get pedantic—compared it with an Act of the old Scottish Parliament: the Fisheries Act 1705. The old Scottish Acts were fascinating in the way they linked in with the ordinary workers and common people. In the 15th and 16th centuries, those that related to the masses started off with the wonderful expression: "For the safety and favour of the puir folks that labours the ground". The 1705 Act does not use those words, but it is interesting to read the first sentence:
	"Our Sovereign Lady and the Estates of Parliament taking to consideration the great and many advantages that may arise to this Nation by encouraging the Salmond White and Herring fishings they being not only a natural and certain fund to advance the trade and increase the wealth thereof but also a true and ready way to breed seamen and set many poor and idle to work".
	That sounds like a piece of legislation from the 1980s.  [ Laughter. ] Interestingly, the same justification, using different language, appears in the 1771 UK statute, but it is limited to the white herring fisheries. I checked, as far as I could, to see whether the 1705 Act was still in force, and I was told by the Library—the information also appears on the UK statute law database—that it is.
	I am not sure whether that complicates matters or makes things easier. However, as there is to be Scottish legislation, it may be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament, if it so chooses, to repeal the 1705 Act. The old Scottish Acts have rules that do not apply in the UK. For example, an Act that is obsolete can be put through a process called desuetude, which effectively repeals it. That needs the authority of the courts, but it can be done. I suspect that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is making the same appeal to the Scottish Parliament that it is making to me and to others, but it is unlikely that the Scottish Parliament will want to repeal the 1705 Act. That may lead to a situation whereby fishermen north of the border have a statutory right to fish, to land their boats on the shore and all the other rights that the Act gives to fishermen, whereas fishermen in the rest of the UK will not have that right because the 1771 Act has been repealed. That may be a bit more of a grievance for the fishermen in Hastings, for example, than to those north of the border.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will try to clarify the situation. Those two Acts are still in force, and because his legislation does not attempt to repeal the 1705 Act we will be left with a different set of rules on either side of the border.

Andrew George: I beg to move amendments 18, 23 and 42—

Andrew George: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I did not want to miss the opportunity and later find out that I should have moved them at this point. It was a belt and braces approach.
	As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I am keen to ensure that there is a common thread—a golden thread—of balance between social, economic and environmental factors in the Bill. The Minister keeps coming back to that balance. That theme should run through the Bill from start to finish.
	Some of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks and some of his exchanges with other Labour Members presupposed that fishing and marine conservation must necessarily be in conflict, but I do not think that needs to be the case. I do not know whether he is perhaps seeking conflict where there need not be any. Part of the problem in the past has been that the fishing industry has been seen as something of a macho trade and marine conservation as rather effeminate and quite different. However, it is interesting and significant that over the past 10 to 15 years, the fishing industry and the environmental movement, for want of a better expression, have come together. Scientists and fisherman have worked together to understand each other a great deal more, help each other and find a way forward that is good for both marine conservation and sustainable fishing.

Austin Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that last point. The fishing industry and conservation groups have come much closer together, which is why the fishing industry feels a bit let down by the obsession with controlling fishing in marine conservation zones.
	In response to some of my hon. Friends, I am not saying that fishing is not about marine conservation. Of course it is—it is the industry with the most interest in conservation. However, the patchwork quilts of marine conservation zones are not an appropriate way of controlling fishing effort or catches.

Andrew George: I was encouraged down a route that was not part of my speech, which I shall return to.
	Before I turn to the amendments that I have tabled, I wish to speak to amendment 17, which I have signed. I remind the Minister that, in Committee, I urged him to review the decision to annul the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. As a result, we entered into correspondence. He wrote to me on 8 July, I responded on 31 July and he wrote again on 4 September, giving further explanations of the background to annulling the Act.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran), as a lawyer who has obviously studied the Act in great detail, articulated his arguments far better than I possibly could. All I say to the Minister is that, quite apart from the clear technical arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced very well, erasing the Act does not pass the "what harm" test—what harm is there in leaving it in place? Nor does it pass the "what hurry" test—what is the hurry to get this done now? The correspondence that I have had with those in the fishing industry who are keen to keep the 1771 Act extant suggests that they believe that elements of that rather ancient-sounding Act are relevant today. The Minister denies that, but I say to him that in any case it is doing no harm and there is no hurry to remove it.
	I turn now to the amendments in my name. The purpose of amendment 18, to clause 124, is to establish the balance that the Minister has said he wants to achieve. Subsection 2(e) and (f) state that the regular report that the MMO will produce must refer to
	"the extent to which, in the opinion of the authority, the conservation objectives stated for each MCZ which it has designated have been achieved"
	and
	"any further steps which, in the opinion of the authority, are required to be taken in relation to any MCZ in order to achieve the conservation objectives stated for it."
	To balance the conservation objectives with socio-economic considerations, which are after all to be acknowledged at the point of designation, it seems appropriate for some attempt to be made to assess in the report the impact of policies in MCZs on the socio-economic vitality of the coastal communities affected. The amendment would dovetail with the rest of what is proposed for the report by adding that it must mention
	"the extent to which, in the opinion of the authority, the operation of the MCZs have had an impact upon the marine economy in general and the commercial and recreational fishing industry in particular".
	I think that that would be a reasonable amendment. It would simply establish a balance that the Minister told the Public Bill Committee that he wishes to achieve, and that I believe we all wish to achieve. There is an opportunity for the Minister to accept the amendment.
	The purpose of amendment 23 is slightly different. A number of conservation bodies are concerned about the fisheries defence. I think that they have a justification for their concerns because, as the provision is drafted, the defence could be used by some in the fishing industry who are less reputable—the vast majority do not do this—and who might not go about their trade in an MCZ or around a feature that we are seeking to protect with the care that we would hope for.
	The Minister and the Secretary of State, through Government amendment 5, are proposing that at some point—I think the Minister suggested quite soon after the Bill becomes an Act—the fisheries defence will simply be removed. I propose a tightening of the Bill. Clause 141 states:
	"It is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence under section 140 to show that...the effect of the act on the protected feature in question could not reasonably have been avoided."
	Under the Bill, it is incumbent on the enforcement body to disprove the defence. I am proposing that a fisherman would need to demonstrate a three-pronged, higher hurdle of proof to be able to use the fisheries defence as effectively as the Minister is seeking to achieve.
	The purpose of amendment 42, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby clearly supports is, as it says, to achieve "equal treatment". The last thing we want to do as a result of the Bill—the Minister has perpetually reassured those of us who have raised the issue—is tie the hands of UK fisherman and allow fishermen from other nations, including EU nations, to be able simply to plunder the fish stocks in areas to which UK fisherman have effectively been told they cannot go and fish. If that is not achieved as a result of the Bill, it would undermine its authority and the support for it.

Elliot Morley: I very much welcome the progress that has been made on issues such as the fisherman's defence since I spoke on Second Reading. I congratulate the Minister and Committee on the work that they have done. He has clearly listened to representations and there was clearly an effective debate, demonstrating all that is effective in the Committee system.
	My proposals would deal with some of those problems and strengthen the Bill. I particularly wanted to speak about inshore limits and to seek clarification from the Minister, who has moved a considerable way on the matter. I accept many of the points made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), in that there should be no contradiction between the fishing industry and effective marine conservation, which have shared interests.
	There are good examples of what the fishing industry has done in recent years to improve marine conservation. Certification schemes such as the marine stewardship scheme have grown, and a lot of the big retailers, including the Co-op and Marks & Spencer, take the issue of sustainable fisheries very seriously. Wholesalers such as Young's seafood group, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have a good record on the issue. That has spread through to the fishing industry, which I think has recognised that it is in its interests to work with conservation groups and conservation policy. The Isle of Lundy, which has been mentioned, is a good example of that. Fishermen have benefited from, for example, larger shellfish and increased catches. There is no contradiction in the principle.
	I was concerned, as were groups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link, that the fisherman's defence was far too widely drawn. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that one attractive thing about people in the fishing industry is that they are open and honest when they talk about things in detail—they will be quite open about some of the extremely damaging, and in many cases illegal practices, within the industry. They generally point to the other fishing point down the road and say that the fishermen there and not they are involved in such practices.

Elliot Morley: Or up the road. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that if we are not careful, we will leave loopholes that will be exploited.
	As has been said, this is an exciting Bill and I have been very keen on it for a long time. I know how difficult and complicated it has been to introduce—it has been a lot more complicated than many people understand. It is a great tribute to the Government and the Department that they have managed to make progress with the Bill and that it is heading towards the statute book with such widespread support. I very much welcome that.
	The issue is how we can ensure that there are no loopholes that can be exploited. We also need to ensure that British fishermen are not discriminated against. It is not acceptable to have measures in place that apply only to the UK fleet and not to other EU or non-EU fishing boats. As the Minister knows, we have absolute control within the inshore limit of 6 maritime miles. One could argue that the defence in clause 141(4) does not need to apply up to the 6-mile limit because there can be no discrimination within that area. The Minister will say that that point can be addressed through the new IFCAs, and indeed it can. We have an opportunity to establish some really good examples of sustainable fisheries management within the 6-mile limit, and the inshore fleet has led the way by, for example, using creels to catch prawns—which is much less damaging than trawling—and hand-lining, which is much more selective than many other forms of fishing. We have seen some tremendous examples of good conservation by the sea fisheries committees on shellfish, which were agreed by the inshore fleet. We have a real opportunity and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to emphasise that this is something that the IFCAs could do.
	Within the 6 to 12-mile limit, some non-UK vessels have historical rights in those waters. I am very concerned about the exploitation of loopholes, but I do not want to see our vessels in those areas being discriminated against by having to comply with measures that do not apply to non-UK vessels. For example, there are long-running tensions in the sole fisheries and conservation areas, and this Bill may provide opportunities to address those problems. Can the Minister explain how the Bill will work within the 6 to 12-mile limit, where we do not have exclusive competence? The Commission itself recognises that we need these measures, and we have heard from other hon. Members that other countries are introducing their own measures on marine conservation zones, and that is right.
	As has been said several times, we need to achieve the right balance between protecting the marine eco-system and recognising the existence of the fishing industry and the jobs and economic activity that accompany it. The Minister is moving towards finding the right balance, but if it is not right, people will exploit the situation through legal challenges or by making excuses for damaging activities. We must also be fair and even-handed so that our fishing industry is not unduly discriminated against. I think that we are going in the right direction and I seek further assurance this evening.

Charles Walker: I listened to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) with great interest. I did not agree with everything that he said, but I did agree that our fishing industry has been extraordinarily badly served by this House and the common fisheries policy. Of course, the interests of commercial fishermen and of recreational fishermen should be convergent, but that is not always the case.
	There is also a flaw in marine conservation zones, because they may create great strife and angst if UK fishermen have to sit on the sidelines watching EU vessels merrily trawling through them. That would be an absolute disaster and make a mockery of what we are trying to achieve here—

Charles Walker: I am sure that the Minister will provide us with great comfort on that point in the future.
	Marine conservation zones are critical if we are to preserve and conserve fish stocks. Everyone here is a conservationist—we want to see healthy fish stocks and a flourishing commercial fishing industry. I want to see a flourishing recreational fishing sector as well—I declare my interest at this point—because it is an important contributor to the economy. I know that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will address that issue later.
	We must ensure that commercial fishermen understand that this is not yet another attack on them. However, a marine conservation zone that allows commercial fishing is not a conservation zone—it is just another fishing zone. So I am not entirely clear about the argument on that point. However, let me also reflect on the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who said that commercial fishermen have been responsible for very successful innovations to protect and safeguard fish stocks. He mentioned the case of Lundy, and that is an example of best practice. The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned innovative new methods of shrimping and catching scallops. Several commercial fishermen are trying different net meshes to ensure that non-target species can escape and do not end up as by-product, which too often is thrown back into the sea for seagulls—a crying shame.
	I am worried about the fishing defence. I would have thought that all damage caused by commercial fishermen would be accidental. I cannot see commercial fishermen setting out to cause deliberate damage, but we know that there are certain trawling methods that cause significant damage to the sea bed. There are also forms of fishing that take a high number of non-target species. Yes, that is accidental damage, but it is damage, and that is what we are worried about. We need to find a sensible way forward that allows nursery areas to flourish and lets us restock our inshore waters with bass and other important fish. We also need to ensure that in the medium to long term our commercial sea fishermen see the benefit of the Bill.
	I repeat that we have served them badly over the past 30 to 40 years. The CFP affects all fishermen in Europe, but our fishermen used to enjoy the richest fishing grounds and our industry used to employ many hundreds of thousands of people, not tens of thousands of people. Over the past 40 years, we have left far too many fishing families high and dry. I do not want to be a rabid anti-European, because it is not in my nature to be rabid about anything, but I hope that a future Government—whether Labour or an incoming Conservative Government —get to grips with the CFP so that it works in favour of our fishermen more than it does now.

Angela Smith: You will not hear me demonising fishermen this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for although I come from generations of steel and coal families on my mother's side, on my father's side I come from fishing families from the port of Great Grimsby. I therefore understand, perhaps more than most, how important fishing has been to the livelihoods of families down the generations, whether we are talking about fishing in the Arctic circle, which my father did in the late 1950s, or working in the fish processing factories that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned. Ross, Young's Seafood, Findus, Birds Eye—you name it, it has been in Grimsby.
	For some time, the existence of towns such as Great Grimsby has depended on the fishing industry. The town of Great Grimsby was the world's premier fishing port and, it has to be said, it was bigger than Hull's fishing port.

Angela Smith: Indeed, but now it is the ex-premier. Grimsby benefited in the 1950s and 1960s because of a no-take zone, which was established because of the second world war. Between 1939 and 1945, fishing operations were suspended in the North sea and the Arctic circle. The fishermen of Grimsby were employed in minesweeping and dangerous war operations that involved sailing small boats under German radar into Norway, and so on. They did that work only because the Royal Navy could not do it, being unable to take the sea conditions that it involved. That gives hon. Members an indication of how dangerous fishing is, especially in the conditions out in the Arctic, and why it is probably the most dangerous occupation in the world. Nobody knows better than I do about the realities of fishing and what it involves.
	However, in the '50s and '60s the healthy stock in the North sea was exploited to the nth degree. Indeed, the fishermen were also heavily exploited, thanks to the greed of those companies that were trying to make the most of the stocks available. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) that this House is entirely or perhaps even largely to blame for what happened to the fishing industry. To some extent we have to blame the conglomerates and the owners of the fishing industry, who took the fish out of the sea and drove those men to the extremes of their occupation in order to get as much fish as possible on the quayside in Grimsby and Hull in the '50s and '60s. We all know the consequences of those actions. In some cases those actions were piracy. Indeed, one of the skippers in Grimsby was arrested for piracy over in Iceland in the 1960s—he came to a sticky end, although not at the hands of the Icelanders. That shows the level of exploitation of the industry, and we live with the consequences even now.
	More than anything else, the story of what happened to trawling in places such as Grimsby indicates why we have to take forward some of the measures in the Bill. We have to strike the right balance between marine conservation and sustainable fishing. That is the core of what we are trying to do. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) said about an increasing understanding between the industry and the conservationists. In fact, their interests are completely compatible. They can work together to ensure that there is a future fishing industry and, equally, that the marine environment is not exploited as it has been in the past.
	None of the amendments before us addresses the key issue, which is the incorporation into the Bill of the defence against damage to the marine environment. I understand entirely why that defence cannot be taken out, because of the 6 to 12-nautical mile limit, which involves the rights of European vessels to fish in our waters, and the rights of our fishermen within the nought to 6-nautical mile limit. I understand the Minister's argument that taking action on that limit runs the risk of damaging our domestic fishing industry while giving European vessels the right to run riot in our marine environment. I therefore understand the Minister's position on one level.
	The way forward is reform of the common fisheries policy in the 2012 negotiations, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) outlined from the Front Bench, to deal with the 6 to 12-mile limit. However, on the nought to 6-mile limit, I would appreciate some remarks from the Minister about the possibility of issuing guidance from the legislation on using existing byelaws to protect our precious marine environment not just from reckless damage but, where necessary and on a case-by-case basis, accidental damage.

Alan Reid: I represent a constituency where fishing is still an important part of the local economy. Fishermen support the Bill. They fully recognise the importance of conservation, and they support the Bill because it sets out a path for sustainable protection of the marine environment and a coherent management structure. However, fishing organisations have one or two concerns.
	I start by referring to an 18th century Act to which reference has been made tonight—the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. Fishermen and fishing organisations feel strongly about preserving the Act because it sets out basic rights that have existed for more than 200 years. I support amendment 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and to which I am a signatory.
	The Government's case is that the Act is obsolete. If it were, it would make sense to repeal it, but the problem is that it may come to light that it is not obsolete. It provides basic rights to fishermen, and they feel strongly about it. It gives fishermen throughout Great Britain rights that do not seem to be replicated in other statutes. It gives them the legal right to fish the British seas, subject to complying with subsequent regulations, such as the common fisheries policy and British licensing regulations. It also gives them the right to use all British ports and harbours, subject to payment of harbour dues. Without the Act, private interests could exclude our fishermen from their harbours.

Austin Mitchell: rose—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Rob Marris: There we go, that is another red herring, as it is not in the Bill. If we look at the Bill, we find that clause 117(6)(b) refers to
	"enabling or facilitating ...recovery or increase"
	of stocks. Clause 129(3)(b) talks about "prohibiting or restricting entry", so there could be a prohibition, but the word "restricting" also appears in the Bill, which is of course different from "prohibiting". Clause 123(3)(a) refers to measures contributing to "the conservation or improvement" of stocks.
	The red herring is in amendment 44 and new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby tabled, because he sees things as one or the other, as do elements in the fishing industry. Yes, I will demonise the fishing industry, although not individual fisher folk, because the industry has an appalling record. Sadly, that record has been maintained for many years, although, gradually, it is getting a bit better. Historically, it has an appalling record of fishing stocks out: we see that all over the world—we see it in the North sea; we see it in the collapse of the Canadian cod fishery off the Grand banks of Newfoundland; we see it in the collapse of the Pacific fishery off the west coast of Canada. By the way, that did not happen under a common fisheries policy, as that fishery is not covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement under national legislation.

Rob Marris: Let me make my point and then I will give way. Inherent in amendment 44 and new clause 8 is the concept that conservation and preservation of marine stocks—marine fauna and marine animals are mentioned in the Bill—is counterpoised to the interests of the fishing industry. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others, "Be careful in what you wish for because you might get it". If marine conservation zones improved fish stocks and thus improved the circumstances for the fishing industry, passing new clause 8 and amendment 44 tonight would mean that the Government would have to take statutory measures to mitigate the consequences of that improvement. That is inherent in the wording of new clause 8 and amendment 44, which shows that those who framed them and support them see conservation and preservation of marine fauna and the interests of the commercial fishing industry as counterpoised, but they are not. I firmly believe that, handled sensitively, marine conservation zones could help increase fish stocks and, therefore, in the medium and longer term, help the commercial fishing industry.

Austin Mitchell: My point was simply that conservation measures are best handled on a universal basis within our fishing area. My hon. Friend is obviously scarred by the experience of Canada, which he has quoted previously in the House. As he comes from Canada, I can understand that. However, the Canadian depredation of cod stocks was caused not by the absence of conservation zones, but by universal over-catching by Canadian and other vessels. The fishing industry's record has been good on occasions—Iceland is a classic instance of conservation of stocks. We should contrast the fishing industry as it was with the industry now. An increasing proportion—44 per cent.—of the British industry conforms to the responsible fishing agenda set out by Seafish. The fishing industry now believes in conservation, and fights for it.

Austin Mitchell: One cannot do conservation in itsy-bitsy pieces in minute marine conservation zones—or small marine conservation zones; I am not sure how big they will be—that are not linked up as a network.

Rob Marris: That is one of the few illuminating pieces of evidence in this part of the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that Wolverhampton is one of the furthest places from the sea in the United Kingdom, and as far as I am aware—I am aware of my family history back to 1050 on my father's side—I have no fisher folk in my family. Surprisingly, however, SBS/Fletcher, which manufactures boats, is in my constituency.
	One piece of evidence that stood out, as several hon. Members have mentioned, came from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox), who was briefly in the Chamber and spoke about the experience of the fishery closure in Lundy. Another piece of connected evidence was provided by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who spoke about the success of the closure of a spawning area between January and March or April each year. Those relatively small-scale—relative to the geography and the coast of the United Kingdom—schemes have worked to the benefit of not only conservation but the commercial fishing industry in those areas. Those are two pieces of evidence for my assertion that the Aunt Sally contradiction simply does not exist.
	I want to consider the other red herring suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. When talking about criminal sanctions and so on, he referred to accidents. Perhaps he will intervene to tell me where the Bill refers to accidental damage. What I do see is a reference to recklessness, in clause 140(2). The word "recklessly" appears in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (2) contains only those four paragraphs, and they all contain the word "recklessly". As a lawyer, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby that the term "accidental" means something rather different from what is meant by the term "reckless". Perhaps he sees no difference between the two, but I assure him that there is one.
	I do not think that the Government should get rid of clause 141(4)(b), as amendment 23 suggests. Government amendment 5 and amendment 42 also seek to alter the subsection. Paragraph (b) states that it is a defence for a person who is charged with an offence to show that
	"the effect of the act on the protected feature in question could not reasonably have been avoided."
	That takes us to the reckless rather than the accidental end of the scale. Government amendment 5 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to remove, or restrict the application of, the defence provided by subsection (4).'
	That is relevant to the passage that I quoted a moment ago. Amendment 5 would give the Secretary of State regulatory powers to remove the defence in subsection (4)(b).
	I believe it was the hon. Member for St. Ives who seemed to have gained the impression from the Government that, if granted by the House tonight and enacted by Parliament, those powers would be used quite quickly, and I am concerned about that for constitutional reasons. I freely admit that my lack of knowledge is to blame, but I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the Minister will tell us where else in statute a provision exists enabling a Secretary of State, by regulation, to remove a defence.
	We all know that regulations create offences from time to time, but removing a defence and doing it so quickly—if that is the Government's intention—strikes me as very surprising. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government have any such ideas, if not a fixed intent. If they have such ideas, perhaps he will explain why the removal of the defence in subsection (4) is not itself a Government amendment, rather than the Secretary of State's being given an order to take such action on a whim and on the basis of regulations that will have much less scrutiny.

Martin Salter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on lightening our proceedings. I think that most of us wondered whether we would achieve such levels of excitement.
	Let me begin by identifying an absurdity that has featured in a number of statements made today. Members have said that it is not possible to create a patchwork quilt of marine conservation zones—that they will not work. Every Member has been lauding the achievements of Lundy as a no-take zone. That is the first patch in the patchwork quilt that we need to establish around these shores, if there are to be any fish left for the people of Great Grimsby and elsewhere to fish for.
	I oppose new clause 8, and I oppose amendment 24, which seeks to enhance the sea fisheries defence. I support Government amendment 5, which seeks to minimise that defence in the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy, as outlined by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon). By way of a change, I support Government amendments 13 and 14, which seek important reforms to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.
	It is a pleasure to follow a number of speeches, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). However, I must take issue with what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said about accidental damage. There is nothing accidental about beam trawling. Beam trawling is an environmental disaster. If we were to translate it to the agricultural field—pardon the pun—it would mean a farmer ploughing the same field seven times in a single growing season. Beam trawling does long-term environmental damage and cannot exist alongside conservation and sustainable fisheries. They are completely opposed, and such damage is not done accidentally.

Martin Salter: I welcome that clarification.
	There need not be a conflict between fishing—whether commercial or recreational—and conservation, provided that the fishermen decide to come down in favour of conservation. Turning to my own sport, I have lost count of the number of arguments I have had with salmon anglers who opposed the bringing in of the rule of returning spring salmon before 16 June. It has finally got into the psyche of Britain's game anglers that we cannot continually remove spawning fish from the food chain and expect a run of salmon in subsequent years. Fishermen can be conservationists, but the choice is theirs, and fishermen or their public representatives who choose to oppose the single most important piece of environmental legislation affecting the coastline and seas of this nation have clearly not opted to come down on the side of conservation.

Martin Salter: No.
	The Marine Conservation Society wrote the following to the Minister back on 3 July:
	"The true value in marine reserves lies not in their ability to protect the most fragile species as is often put forwards. Instead marine reserves, where no extraction or disturbance takes place, allow the sea to fully recover for species diversity and productivity."
	There is a common interest between conservationists and the commercial sector to ensure a more productive sea.
	I turn briefly to the Government amendments that seek to amend and improve the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The Environment Agency has just concluded a consultation on the removal of freshwater fish that the Bill allows for. The consultation overwhelmingly came down in favour of a catch-and-release regime for our freshwater fisheries. Henceforth, the archaic, anachronistic system of regional byelaws is to be replaced with a national catch-and-release regime for coarse fish, which is long overdue. Yes, there will be some exceptions for fishery management, predator fishing or conservation purposes, but in their response to the Environment Agency consultation as part of this Bill, freshwater anglers overwhelmingly came down on the side of conservation, and it is to their credit that they did so.
	I take issue with the argument that somehow, only Members with coastal constituencies have the right to argue about the condition of our sea. Actually, some of the finest contributions came from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Newbury—constituencies that are a considerable distance from the sea. The sea is a common heritage that we all share.
	Given that time is of the essence and that we have other groups of amendments to move on to, I would like the last word in my contribution to go to a trawlerman. Mr. Dave Murphy was a trawler captain for Interfish until two years ago, when he became the outreach officer for the Finding Sanctuary project. He says:
	"Protecting habitats has got to do fish stocks good in the end. I've had the opportunity to make my life fishing. I'd like my two boys to have the same chance."
	That is what the Bill is about: ensuring that the fish stocks that we value, and that we want to see protected and enhanced and flourish, are there for future generations.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, this has been an excellent debate. To refer to the last point first, I confirm that we are very close to issuing guidance for the criteria underpinning the evidence base and science upon which the partnerships—importantly, they involve fishermen as well—will bring forward proposals for the marine conservation zones. All those interests are working together, and the most notable example is of course the Finding Sanctuary project in the south-west, which is very well advanced. It is a triumph in bringing together a wide range of diverse interests, all of whom, including fishermen, own the solution to these challenges as well as the problem.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed I can. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, but I can tell her that we have actively been working on the guidelines for some time to finesse them and make sure that they are the right criteria. I intend to bring them forward a lot sooner than that, but I cannot give her a date today.
	I am very tempted, bearing in mind some of the remarks that have been made, to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy and how the UK is leading the agenda, long-term sustainability and maximum sustainable yields, regionalisation and ownership of fisheries management at a regional level, and bringing marine and fisheries together, which much of this debate is about. However, I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will go straight to the amendments.
	First, let me deal with new clause 8 and amendment 44. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for tabling those provisions, the first of which would require Ministers to
	"take all reasonable steps to manage and mitigate the impact on fishing and other existing activities resulting from the designation and management of an MCZ."
	Amendment 44 is broadly similar in its aim, but is linked to the reporting duty in clause 124. There has been much debate during the passage of the Bill on whether Ministers should have a power or a duty to take account of social and economic implications when deciding whether to designate a MCZ. These provisions are slightly different, because they would place a legal duty on Ministers to manage and mitigate the social and economic impacts that follow designation. The impacts of designation will be wide-ranging: they are likely to vary in scale; many different sectors and stakeholders might be affected; and there may be both direct and indirect impacts. These provisions would require Ministers first to identify and then to implement whatever steps are reasonable to manage and mitigate all the impacts.
	I am not saying that Ministers, and the other public authorities with a role in MCZs, should not have regard to the social and economic impacts of the decisions that they take—in fact, we have had a lot of debate on that—or that they should not keep those impacts under review and seek to manage and mitigate those impacts whenever they reasonably can. I expect that to happen, but I do not want to place a specific legal duty on Ministers for a number reasons.
	First, such a duty would be an extremely difficult and onerous obligation to meet, because of the range and variety of impacts to which I have just referred, and because measures to mitigate the impact on one type of activity, for example, fishing, might have a greater adverse impact on other types of activity, for example, diving, recreational activities and so on. In fact, a broad duty to mitigate the impacts on a number of activities, which are not necessarily always compatible, would be impossible to fulfil.
	Secondly, a range of public bodies will be involved in managing MCZs. Ministers will take the final decisions on designation, but MCZs will be managed by a number of public authorities, including the Marine Management Organisation, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other public bodies that carry out functions in the marine environment.
	Thirdly, I am concerned that under these proposals anyone who disagreed with the Minister's decision would challenge it through judicial review. For example, Ministers could face a legal challenge on their interpretation—I could be challenged on my interpretation—of what would be reasonable steps to take, as well as on their assessment of the scale of impacts, and on whether the measures undertaken were sufficient.
	MCZ measures are not, in any event, set in stone. In appropriate cases, designation orders could be varied and byelaws amended. The Bill has been drafted so as to ensure that all those carrying out activities in the marine area—including fishermen—have a chance to be heard and to help form our policy, be it the marine policy statement, marine plans, MCZ designations or byelaws. I also have technical concerns about the drafting of the provision, which does not tie in with the terminology in the Bill. I hope that, in view of the considerable burden that the proposal would impose and the risks involved, my hon. Friend will withdraw the new clause.
	Let me move on to amendment 18, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and seeks to require Ministers carrying out their reporting functions to include information in the reports on the extent to which, in their opinion, MCZs have
	"an impact upon the marine economy in general and...commercial and recreational fishing...in particular."
	The purpose of the reporting duty in clause 124 is to require Ministers to report to the relevant legislature with information on progress being made. The amendment would considerably extend the scope of the reporting duty to include an assessment of the economic consequences of the actions that have been taken. Social and economic implications may be taken into account in deciding whether to designate an MCZ and also in the subsequent management of the site. We will take decisions on which areas to designate on the very best scientific evidence available to us, and we are keen to involve—I hope that I have made this clear—all relevant interests in identifying and selecting those sites.
	We also want stakeholders to help us gather the evidence on which to base these assessments, which will identify management scenarios, and the associated costs and benefits of the proposed sites. The impact assessments will inform the Secretary of State's final decision on whether to designate sites.
	The designation of a network of MCZs is likely to have an impact across a wide range of economic sectors and individuals, and that impact could be both direct and indirect and vary in size. I am concerned that placing a legal duty on Ministers to report on the impact that MCZs have on the marine economy in general, and on commercial and recreational fishing interests in particular, could be difficult and costly to comply with in any meaningful way. Although the high-level or generic assessment of such impacts might not present great difficulties, that could be of very little value when we are considering local and regionalised issues.
	That is not to say that the economic impact of designations will be ignored once the sites have been designated. MCZs have been designed to provide protection that is proportionate and able to change over time and that takes into account the wider needs of society. That means that the costs and benefits of any management measures that are introduced following designation should be reviewed by the appropriate authorities so that, if necessary, they can be adjusted and fine-tuned in the light of new information or changes in conditions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, indeed. That is where the debate has to take us, both now and in future months and years. Although we absolutely recognise the impact that the proposal might have on parts of fisheries, if that is managed appropriately we could also have positive benefits—with activity going either into other types of fisheries or into recreational or scientific opportunities and so on.

Andrew George: Even so, the Minister has perpetually repeated that the Bill represents a balance between conservation and socio-economic factors. The only stage at which socio-economic factors will—or rather may—be considered under the Bill as drafted is at the point of designation. In my view, that should be based on sound science in any case. Is he saying that the balance will not then run through the operation of the MCZs? Will the MMO not be informed of, or even make any kind of assessment of, the impact that these MCZs will have on the coastal economies?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that there can be positives as well as negatives in these measures if we manage the marine environment correctly. In fact, we want to reach a point where the positives significantly outweigh the negatives, but that requires an approach such as that which we see in this Bill—a properly planned and managed approach to the marine environment.
	Let me turn to amendment 42 and new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. They were tabled with the objective of making it a legal requirement that UK and foreign fishing vessels must receive equal treatment under offence clauses in MCZs. The sea fishing defence is a blunt instrument that the common fisheries policy—itself in urgent need of reform—requires us to put in place. The amendments become relevant in the light of my own amendment in this group to create a power for the Secretary of State to restrict or remove the sea fishing defence by order. As I said in Committee and have made clear again today, it is my firm intention that that power should be used in an equitable way. We will not use it to discriminate against part of the UK fishing fleet, as to do so would be to shoot ourselves in the foot.
	Neither of the amendments is therefore necessary to ensure fair treatment of UK fishermen. The Government are happy to commit that any exercise of the new power would be made in close consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, the industry, the MMO, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and many others. All these people and organisations have an interest in supporting a vibrant fishing fleet, and not disadvantaging our fishermen.
	The amendments also have a technical deficiency as they could have a consequential impact on our ability to manage local fisheries matters where, to pick up the point raised by my hon. Friends earlier, we can bring in byelaws, after local consultation, to manage local fisheries impacts. The amendments could bring into doubt our ability to bring in MMO byelaws in the 6 to 12 nautical mile zone restricting sea fisheries activities which apply only to UK vessels, because in practice foreign boats do not and will not conduct the same sort of activity. The amendments would remove that flexibility.
	We have the ability actively to manage our inshore area through IFCAs and MMO byelaws in the Bill, and the House has made it clear that it wants to see effective enforcement take place. I would not want to undermine our ability to act where necessary at a local level.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We have other amendments to deal with, so I shall make progress.
	Amendment 23, which was tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives seeks to raise the hurdle for fishermen to make use of the defence available in clause 141(4), which we have come to know as the sea fishing defence. We must of course treat our fishermen fairly, and in that I completely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The Bill is already fair to fishermen in the balance that it strikes. In clause 141(4) it recognises that fishing is a legitimate activity, and a vital part of our economy, not to mention being a provider of employment in places where jobs can be hard to come by.
	The fact that I have been regularly called upon, on the one hand, to strengthen the sea fisheries defence—for example, in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby—and, on the other, have been under great pressure from different quarters to weaken or remove the defence altogether, reinforces my view that we have found the right balance in the current drafting.
	Let me reassure the House that where fishermen are fishing in accordance with the relevant rules and take reasonable steps to avoid damaging the site, they will be able to rely on the defence set out in clause 141(4), but when they break these rules, the legislation will not offer them an easy get-out. The common fisheries policy means that we cannot reduce the defence, and it is not necessary to increase it. Indeed, to provide a stronger defence would start to undermine the point of part 5, which is about improving protection for the marine environment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have so much to get through.
	In any event, the amendment does not work. It undermines the offence provision in the Bill, confuses the level of knowledge that a fisherman would need for a prosecution to be brought, and would almost certainly constitute a breach of our common fisheries policy obligations. For all those reasons and more that I do not have time to explain, I urge the hon. Member for St. Ives to think carefully and withdraw the amendment.
	Amendments 28 and 29 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), my predecessor and a great supporter of the Bill. Together, the amendments would significantly narrow the geographical area within which a defendant could claim the sea fisheries defence in clause 141(4). That would mean that the defence would not be available out to 6 nautical miles. It would also mean that the defence would not be available in those waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles where there are no historic fishing rights for vessels from other member states. However, the defence would continue to be available in most of our waters between 6 and 12 nautical miles, and in all waters beyond 12 nautical miles.
	The reason for including the sea fisheries defence in the Bill was to avoid breaching European law. The amendments are consistent with that purpose, and I am satisfied would not lead to a breach of European law. However, my concern is that they would complicate matters for fishermen and enforcement authorities without delivering any significant conservation benefits. They would also have an impact primarily on UK fishermen. However, throughout the passage of the Bill we have been clear that as a matter of principle we do not want to discriminate against the UK fleet. Doing so would still leave marine conservation zones vulnerable to the activities of foreign vessels.
	If my right hon. Friend's amendments were accepted, it would mean that the sea fisheries defence was available to fishermen in some areas, but not in others. The defence would always be available in relation to offshore waters beyond 12 nautical miles, but never available to inshore fishermen operating within 6 nautical miles of baselines around the coast. Between six and 12 nautical miles, the situation would be very confusing. Within those waters, fishermen would need to possess a detailed knowledge of the historic fishing rights enjoyed by all foreign vessels. For all those reasons, I do not think that the amendment is absolutely necessary, and when I come to the Government's amendments I shall explain why.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby tabled amendment 24 to make it clear that, where a fishermen is pursuing his or her trade in a reasonable way, they should not be guilty of an offence under byelaws made under clause 139 or under the general offence set out in clause 140. I assure my hon. Friend that the Bill already provides the effect that he wishes to see. Clause 141 provides that where a fisherman causes damage while fishing within the law and the damage could not reasonably have been avoided, he is entitled to the defence in that part of the clause. In fact, it is arguably a slightly broader defence. The Bill speaks of damage that could not reasonably have been avoided, whereas my hon. Friend's amendment would provide a defence only if the damage could not have been avoided at all—whatever the cost in time, money, or perhaps even safety. There are other reasons why I have issues with the amendment, but I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the Bill already contains the protections that he seeks.
	I turn now to sea fisheries defence and Government amendments 5 and 9. In the light of the very persuasive points that were made today and in Committee, I shall move amendments 5 and 9, which future-proof the Bill in anticipation of the reform of the CFP. The amendment to clause 141 would give a power to the Secretary of State to restrict or remove the sea fisheries defence in subsection (4). It is necessary to include that defence in the Bill at the current time in order to comply with European law, but I have considered the concerns that were raised in Committee. We are currently—right now—pursuing the greater integration of fisheries and environmental policies for the forthcoming round of common fisheries policy reform negotiations. As I said at the outset, the UK is leading the way.
	The future status of the defence is dependent on the outcome of discussions that are currently under way, but its purpose is to enable us to provide the protection that marine conservation zones need, in compliance with the common fisheries policy, so the associated amendment to clause 311 would ensure that the power was exercised by means of a statutory instrument, subject to an affirmative resolution. That is important, because removing the defence will mean amending primary legislation and, in effect, widening the scope of what is considered to be criminal activity.
	The amendment would give the order-making power to the Secretary of State, who has responsibility on behalf of the UK for negotiations on fisheries matters with partners in Europe. However, I know that the devolved Administrations have a keen interest in how and when the power would be used. Consequentially, it would be exercised only following early and close consultation with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers. Appropriate arrangements would be agreed with the devolved Administrations and incorporated into a concordat that is being developed on how the separate Administrations will work together to deliver the nature conservation aims of the Bill.
	Many people have spoken about amendment 17, which relates to white herring fisheries. The amendment would remove from the Bill the repeal of the remaining sections of the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. The hon. Member for St. Ives, who has added his name to the amendment, raised the issue in Committee on 7 July. I undertook to write, as he said, and I did so over the summer. My letter of 4 September confirmed the Government's view, which we still hold. Although I heard all the views expressed today and am not an unreasonable man, I still hold the view that the 1771 Act should be repealed. I recognise that some in the fishing industry, particularly those in Scotland, remain concerned about the potential impact of its repeal. Let me explain.
	Clause 229 repeals a number of old fisheries enactments, including the 1771 Act. The effect of the repeal in Scotland will be rather different from that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, because in Scotland the repeal will have little effect, as the relevant rights are effectively covered by the Scottish Fisheries Act 1705. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the repeal will remove the remaining rights set out in the 1771 Act.
	Only fishermen who are employed in the white herring industry are entitled to the rights of free access to natural ports and harbours for curing fish, erecting tents and huts and drying nets. Repeal of the 1771 Act is appropriate because there is no longer any good reason why one group of fishermen should enjoy a benefit that no others have. The Act was designed to encourage the white herring fishery of the 18th century, and our view remains that that purpose, and the policy behind it, is no longer relevant.
	Let me add why we are repealing the Act, rather than simply leaving it. Hon. Members will agree that redundant legislation should not be left on the statute book to gather dust. The 2006 Davidson review looked at where outdated legislation could be scrapped, simplified or consolidated in line with the principles of better regulation. It identified 30 such fisheries-focused Acts and recommended that DEFRA should use this Bill to repeal out-of-date primary legislation and to consolidate much of the rest. In response to the review, it was decided not to undertake a wholesale review of fisheries Acts, but to identify those that should be repealed through the Bill. Nine such Acts were identified, of which six, and part of another, were put forward for repeal. I understand people's concerns about this matter, but those concerns do not apply to Scotland because of the 1705 Act. Indeed, they apply only to fishermen who are fishing for white herring.
	Finally, on Government amendments 13 and 14, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) for proposing a similar amendment in Committee. I was not able to accept it, because the wording did not quite achieve the end that he and I both desired, but I am pleased to bring it back now in a form that is fit for purpose. The amendments add section 22 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to the list of sections to be repealed. Quite simply, that section is obsolete—first, because it bans the sale of salmon and sea trout at the wrong times of year. The dates in section 22 originally mirrored the close seasons for salmon and sea trout, but, over time, the Environment Agency has used its powers to move those close seasons to more appropriate dates, and the two are now out of kilter.
	Secondly, section 22 is obsolete because its contribution to the Environment Agency's fight against poaching has been overtaken by powers under the Salmon Act 1986. I could go on, but this section is a classic example of out-of-date legislation that should be repealed. With those comments, which were slightly rushed, but comprehensive, I hope, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and accept the Government's amendments as good improvements to the Bill.

Austin Mitchell: I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I am surprised by the amount of passion against the fishing industry that has been roused in the breasts of Members who represent urban constituencies that are scores of miles from any fishing port in the country. I shall not go on, because there would be a big educational job there, about the £6 billion a year contribution that the fishing industry makes to our economy. I will say, however, that I was very happy with the Minister's reply. My main intention, in defending the interests of the industry in this way, was to get him to undertake certain commitments that he has wholeheartedly given.
	I am disappointed by the Minister's response on the white herring legislation, because it leaves Scotland, once again, in a privileged position. The Scots have their own white herring Act and the protection that it gives, whereas that legislation will be removed from English fishermen. That is another advantage of devolution in Scotland. Joking aside, I am happy with the commitments that the Minister has given, and I am grateful to him for giving them, because they recognise the importance of fishermen. With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	 Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew George: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. We have had some good debates so far, and we are about to enter into a debate on a very significant element of the Bill—in fact, many people consider it central—on marine conservation. We have only half an hour left for that debate, yet tomorrow we have debates on matters that several of us consider to be less significant, if important nevertheless. Can you use your offices, or find some means through the usual channels, in order that the debate on marine conservation can be extended on to tomorrow's Order Paper?

Katy Clark: I beg to move amendment 3, page 78, line 32, at end insert—
	'(d) the marine ecosystem as a whole.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 16, page 79, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	Amendment 1, page 79, line 9, at end insert 'only where—
	(a) a choice exists between two or more potential MCZs of equal ecological value; and
	(b) to do so does not hinder the achievement of the objective in section 123 to create a network.'.
	Amendment 43, page 79, line 10, at end insert—
	'(7A) In considering the setting of the conservation objectives for the MCZ (under subsection 2) the appropriate authority shall have regard to the economic and social consequences of doing so; particularly in respect of traditional or long established marine activities.'.
	Amendment 2, in clause 123, page 82, line 18, at end insert—
	'(d) that the network includes highly protected sites.'.
	Amendment 19, in clause 125, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
	'(11A) In carrying out its duties under this section a public authority must have regard to the social and economic consequences of its acts.'.
	Amendment 22, in clause 126, page 86, line 42, at end insert—
	'(10A) In carrying out its duties under this section a public authority must have regard to the social and economic consequences of its decisions.'.
	Amendment 20, in clause 130, page 88, line 39, leave out '(7)' and insert '(8)'.
	Amendment 21, page 89, line 6, at end insert—
	'(4A) In drawing up any byelaw under this section the MMO must have regard to any social or economic consequences.'.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I wish to speak to amendment 3, which I tabled. It would amend clause 117, which deals with the grounds for the designation of marine conservation zones. The amendment relates to the Minister's power to order that a zone should be designated as an MCZ. The Bill enables the Minister, where he or she finds it desirable, to create an MCZ for the purposes of protecting and conserving flora and fauna, our marine habitat, and features of geological and geomorphological interest. The amendment would strengthen the Bill by enabling the Minister to create a zone to protect the marine ecosystem as a whole. We are no longer in a position whereby we can regard our sea as an unlimited renewable resource. As most of us know, the intervention of humankind has not only caused significant depletion of our fishing stocks but led to the degradation of all sorts of other forms of marine life. The amendment aims to strengthen the range of circumstances in which an MCZ could be designated.
	I have personal experience of this matter in that for 15 years in my constituency there has been a significant campaign for an MCZ in Lamlash bay. Earlier this year, it was announced that there would indeed be an MCZ, but there has since been a great deal of frustration at the lack of progress towards that proposal becoming a reality. The organisation Coast—a community-based campaign in my constituency with more than 1,800 members—has been campaigning for an MCZ, and the work that it has carried out shows the difficulty that there is in obtaining such zones.

Katy Clark: It would be of great assistance; I appreciate the Minister's comments.
	Coast proposes that the whole bay should be considered as a conservation zone. At the moment, there is only a no-take zone in part of the bay. To assist hon. Members, a no-take zone basically means that there can be no fishing, whereas in some marine conservation zones fishing is allowed in particular circumstances. Lamlash bay is the first zone of its type in Scotland. We have already heard about the experience on Lundy, where there has been an MCZ since 1993.
	This is not a problem for Britain alone—it is worldwide. Similar debates are taking place in countries throughout the world. South Africa has already taken the decision to designate 20 per cent. of its territorial waters as marine protected areas. I understand that it has already achieved 18 per cent. In Australia 40,000 square miles of the great barrier reef are designated as a marine reserve. Country after country have taken steps in that direction, but we have been slow to go down that path. The Bill is a significant development, and I welcome the fact that we will soon be getting legislation on the matter.

Austin Mitchell: I shall not detain the House long, but I am concerned to introduce the principle that the existing social and economic interests of fishing communities be a dominant consideration in deciding on and running MCZs. The embryonic science that could underpin a scientific basis for designation does not exist—we do not know enough about the marine environment and the science is not strong enough. Therefore, a science-only approach is not going to work—it needs to be supplemented by a concern for safeguarding the interests of coastal communities, which have a special interest in keeping the fishing industry going and in fishing in such areas.
	In other words, the science is uncertain, but fishermen's livings are clear and certain, and they need to be taken into account. Amendments 16, 19 and 21, which I tabled, simply emphasise the importance of the social and economic interests of existing fishing communities and the fishing industry in the zones. To my mind, that must be a dominant and important consideration, but it is not in the Bill.

John Gummer: I rise to support amendment 3, which has been moved by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). The first reason is that to talk about the zones without talking at this point about ecosystems misses the point—it does not make the vital point that the system is a central part of a sensible conservation measure.
	We have for too long believed that we can take bits out of the natural order of things and protect them, and not think about the total system. I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that to say that not knowing enough about something means that we should not do it is a very frightening concept. We would actually never have taken any conservation measures, because the truth is that the less we know about conservation, the more we may be doing very serious damage.
	In fact, we have done a huge amount of work, as a result of which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran has moved her amendment. The Government will have to explain extremely carefully why they do not want what is so obviously a necessary addition. Indeed, not to go for the ecosystem approach is to ignore all the sensible views of environmentalists, because the amendment would remind us of the real nature upon which the species that we are seeking to protect depend.
	I hope very much that the Government, at this last moment, agree that the measure is a necessary step. If they do not accept the amendment, many people outside this place will believe that they have gone only halfway to understanding the issues before us. The measure is a natural addition and I hope that they accept it. If they do not, I hope there is a Division in which the House supports what is a crucial part of the defence of our marine habitat.

Paddy Tipping: It is a great pity that there is such a limited amount of time to talk about marine conservation. It lies at the heart of the Bill and has been discussed throughout the Bill's passage, which has been an awful long time.
	Amendment 1 is about the importance of socio-economic criteria in deciding MCZs. The amendment would make it clear that socio-economic factors should be taken into account only when they are the final factor in deciding between two zones.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made strong cases for a network of marine sites—a holistic approach—and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) talked in very blunt terms about science. May I draw the Minister's attention to a letter about the importance of science that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who has responsibility for the marine and natural environment, wrote to the Wildlife and Countryside Link on 22 October? He said:
	"I would like to reassure you that science will be the first consideration in the selection process. When considering potential MCZs, only when the ecological requirements of the network would be met in such considerations, will the Regional Projects be able to consider whether, and if so how, to factor in socio-economic considerations to their decision making".

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful that the Minister has put that point on the record, because it reinforces the importance of science in the designation of MCZs. I hope that she will ensure that the four regional areas that will make MCZ proposals will look closely at her words, because a discussion of the Irish sea regional project said:
	"The project must balance protection with the interests of commercial fishing, shipping, oil and gas extraction, the aggregates industry"—
	and so on. That does not imply, however, that it should be science and the designation of the marine landscape that is most important. Will the Minister ensure that her words are heard by the regional bodies? In particular, will she make it clear that any draft guidance that goes to those bodies is just that—draft? I understand that the guidance on designation will be released in March next year, but not in draft form. These are important issues of great sophistication, and to issue edicts from on high without further discussion will not be helpful. However, I am grateful that the importance of science has been stressed tonight and placed firmly on the record.

Andrew George: I am disappointed and angry that this central element of the Bill has been allowed so little time. I urge Ministers to use whatever powers they have to allow us an extended debate tomorrow if at all possible.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), and I support his amendments. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark). I have tabled five of the nine amendments, but I shall not detain the House too long. I also support amendments 1, 2 and 3. I know that the Minister's response to the suggestion in Committee of a more highly protected area was to say that it would create a two-tier system, but I urge her to reflect on the fact that in land use planning, there are areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks, listed buildings of various designations, article 4 directions and conservation areas—none of which diminish the other designations.
	Like the hon. Member for Sherwood, I think that the designation of MCZs should be fundamentally based in science. Yes, socio-economic factors may be taken into consideration, but they should be taken into account to a far greater extent in implementation. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby looks at my amendments on the designation of conservation objectives within the MCZs and the byelaws that might be introduced under them, he will see that it is entirely appropriate that socio-economic factors—especially those of traditional fishing coastal communities whose livelihoods will be affected, whether to their benefit or detriment—should be considered when managing and implementing conservation policies. That balance is missing in the Bill at present. Throughout our debate on the Bill, both Ministers have perpetually argued that there is a balance to be had between socio-economic and conservation matters, but it applies only with a "may" in relation to the designation. Beyond that, socio-economic factors are entirely ignored.

Andrew George: That is a fair point, but on the other hand scientists increasingly depend on fishermen to gather their science. There is an increasing coming together of scientists and fishermen to glean a far better understanding of what is happening in marine conservation. Indeed, that is one of the fundamental raisons d'être for finding sanctuary around the south-west coast. However, unless it is entirely peer reviewed there will inevitably be debate about the science, so I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
	I will bring my remarks to a close now. What is missing from the Bill is a balance that allows socio-economic factors to underpin the implementation of conservation measures beyond designation.

Frank Doran: I will be brief. I want to reinforce the point that a balance is important. The Bill is extremely important for our whole environment, not just the marine environment. At the same time, however, the balance has to take into account the view of stakeholders—a point that I made in the previous debate.
	I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position, depending on what side of the argument one is on, of having a number of stakeholders based in my constituency. I have a fishing industry, which is mainly fish processing now, although there are still remnants of a fishing fleet. I also represent part of the European energy capital, Aberdeen, where we have the headquarters not just of the north-east European oil and gas industry, but of a part of the oil industry that now controls operations throughout Africa, Asia and other parts of the world. Developing out of that, we also have the renewables industry. Indeed, we are becoming a centre for all sorts of marine energy, including wave, tidal and offshore wind. All those views need to be taken into account and it is important that the economic and social arguments are properly understood.

Ann McKechin: No, I have only one minute left.
	My other concern about the amendment is more technical. We have had numerous debates throughout the Bill's passage both here and in the other place about definitions and the precision of language. Unfortunately, the phrase
	"the marine ecosystem as a whole"
	does not define the boundaries. It does not define the boundary of an estuary or a bay, for example, or that of the North sea with the Irish sea, and does it include the North Atlantic? That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to withdraw her amendment—
	 Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

Amendment made: 5, page 96, line 11, at end insert—
	'(4A) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to remove, or restrict the application of, the defence provided by subsection (4).'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)

Amendment made: 12, page 274, line 39, at end insert—
	'() After subsection (6) (when notification ceases to have effect) insert—
	"(6A) Subsection (6)(b) does not apply in a case where notice has been given to Natural England under section 28CB(3)."'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies. )

Amendment made: 13, page 285, line 22, leave out '21' and insert '22'.— ( Huw Irranca-Davies .)

That the draft Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.— (Mr. Watts.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved. — (Mr. Watts.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That the draft Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.—( Mr. Watts.)
	 Question agreed to.

Ordered,
	That the Motions in the name of Mr Pat McFadden relating to Financial Assistance for Industry shall be treated as if they related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice of a motion has been given that the instrument be approved.— (Mr. Watts .)

Ordered,
	That, on Wednesday 11 November,
	(1) the House shall meet at 2.30 pm;
	(2) references to specific times in the Standing Orders of this House shall apply as if that day were a Tuesday;
	(3) votes in any deferred division may be recorded for one and a half hours after 3.30 pm, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and
	(4) the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at 3.30 pm and continue until 8.00 pm.— ( Mr. Watts.)

Motion made,
	That Dr Richard Taylor be a member of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.—( Mr. Watts.)

Motion made,
	That Mary Creagh be discharged from the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee and Mr Austin Mitchell be added.— (Mr Watts .)

That Linda Gilroy be discharged from the South West Regional Select Committee and Roger Berry be added.—( Mr. Watts.)

Ordered,
	That Angela Eagle be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Sarah McCarthy-Fry be added.—( Rosemary McKenna, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Watts.)

Mark Lancaster: I would like to be able to say that it is a pleasure to have this Adjournment debate, but I cannot do so. The matter under discussion is very serious.  [Interruption.] The Government have proposed cuts to the Territorial Army. That is of concern in all parts of the House, and I hope the Minister will note— [Interruption.]

Mark Lancaster: I simply ask the Minister to take note of how many hon. Members have decided to remain for this Adjournment debate.
	I start by declaring my interest: I am a serving member of the Territorial Army. Indeed, I am very proud to have served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan for this Government, and I would be delighted to do so again, but I ask, both for myself and other members of the Territorial Army, simply to be given the training to be able to do that.
	Let me begin by saying that it is absolutely clear that this decision is a grave mistake. The sum that the Government are proposing to cut is not only £20 million; this is the second cut of the year, so the figure is £43 million in one financial year. That represents 30 per cent. of the Territorial Army's budget, or 50 per cent. of the TA budget for the last six months of the year to come. It is ill-conceived, and the timing is appalling. What sort of organisation, six months through the financial year, suddenly announces that it is going to cut all funding? Who is responsible for this? Who is going to get sacked? Who is going to be held to account for this decision?
	The communication of this decision was equally appalling, as I appreciate that the Minister accepts. For members of the Territorial Army—volunteers—to find out on a Saturday morning via the BBC, rather than their chain of command, that they might have no more training is absolutely appalling. I hope that if nothing else, the Minister will apologise to members of the Territorial Army for the manner in which they found out.
	The Minister may think he had a problem with the Gurkhas; I fear, however, that this will be an even bigger issue for him. Some 37,000 members of the Territorial Army will all be voting at the next general election, so I hope the Minister will find some more concessions. I have been in the TA for nearly 19 years, and I have never known morale so low, given the manner in which this cut has been announced and the way in which the Government have fumbled around for the past two weeks trying to explain exactly what it is going to be.

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and it is a subject that I will return to.
	Less than six months ago, we had the strategic review of reserves, which finally gave a clear direction on how the Territorial Army would support the regular Army on operations. This is a fundamental point that shows how short-sighted the Government's decision is. The Minister will argue that members of the TA who continue to be mobilised on operations will have the training that they need. That may be the case in the short term—I will argue against that view in a moment—but the Minister must remember that operational tours in Afghanistan are just six months long. By stopping all training now for the next six months, the current Operation Herrick might not suffer, but future operations will. That will remove the TA's ability to regenerate and to undertake the core basic training that is then built up during pre-deployment training. So in the short term we may just get away with this if the Government are very lucky—although I doubt it—but in the long term this will have a damaging strategic impact on the Territorial Army.
	I am pleased to say that the Minister has given some concessions today—a very small step in the right direction. I am hoping, however, that he will recognise that more steps are required and that we will hear more concessions tonight.
	The ethos and culture of the TA revolves around drill nights. The Minister has announced today that we can have one training night per month, but not having weekly drill nights will fundamentally undermine the TA's ability to operate in the long term. Having regular training on a Tuesday night is absolutely vital. The Territorial Army is just that—territorial. Linking back to the point made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), it is how the community keeps together. Commanding officers have told me that, although they welcome one drill night per month, they need more and are very concerned. For soldiers returning from Afghanistan, that is absolutely imperative. Unlike regular Army soldiers, who have links to their regular unit, the only link that TA soldiers have when they come back is going in on a drill night. If commanding officers cannot regularly see their soldiers returning from Afghanistan, they are simply unable to monitor them for potential stress-related problems and ensure that their welfare is in place.

Mark Lancaster: I certainly hope that that is not the case, but perhaps the Minister will address that point when he winds up.
	Drill nights are absolutely vital for the reasons that I have stated, and unless we can get them back I fear for the TA, which cannot simply be mothballed and reopened in six months. Once we lose the culture of attending a drill night on a Tuesday or Wednesday, pretty soon that slot will be filled with something else. People will start going to the cinema with their wives, and it will be almost impossible to get them back in on a Tuesday night. We should not forget that a TA soldier will be paid just one quarter of a day's pay for a drill night. They may receive two or two-and-a-half days' pay for a weekend, so they can do three months of training on drill nights for the equivalent. That is why the concession is so minor. I believe that the Minister said today that giving one drill night back would cost £2.5 million, but that is relatively small beer in the MOD budget. That is why this is such a penny-pinching move, why it will ultimately be so damaging to the Territorial Army and why I call on him to think again, give greater concessions and allow more drill nights.
	Much of the debate has focused on training, and the Minister has made it clear that he is convinced that all soldiers being deployed to Afghanistan will receive the appropriate pre-deployment training. Let us be clear that regular units—formed units—may undergo some 18 months of pre-deployment training before they are deployed on operations. At best, a TA soldier can currently expect to be mobilised some three months before being deployed to Afghanistan, the process culminating in two weeks' testing at the reserve training and mobilisation centre at Chilwell. That is not always the case; colleagues of mine have been mobilised at just three days' notice and have gone straight to the RTMC to be tested.
	The proposal is to have a system where the RTMC will no longer be testing soldiers—it will be training them. Already soldiers are being deployed to Afghanistan at risk. The Minister said in the statement that no TA soldier will be deployed at risk, but that was wrong. This is a technical point, but I am concerned that if we are no longer simply testing at RTMC, but training there too, we will be deploying even more soldiers at greater risk. That is fundamentally unacceptable.
	The TA contains specialists—I am a bomb disposal officer, although I am not currently in that role. Is the Minister really expecting specialists such as me—a bomb disposal officer—to be able to maintain their skills and potentially be deployed to Afghanistan having had no training for six months? That is ridiculous. I heard what was said by my colleagues at the meeting that the Minister attended this afternoon, so I know that he is beginning to realise the strength of the feeling in all parts of the House—it is being shown in this debate tonight—that this is a fundamentally flawed decision.

Mark Lancaster: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, on a subject that I was going to discuss, the officer training corps at universities. One of the key shortages in the TA at the moment is of junior officers—there are simply not enough of them in units. One of the key sources of junior officers used to be the officer training corps, but they are now not going to receive any training at all. We are cutting off that inflow of junior officers, so I would be fascinated to know how the Minister intends to replace it.
	I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity also to explain to the House exactly how the bounty system will work for the end of this financial year. As many hon. Members realise, not only do TA soldiers get paid a daily rate but, providing they meet their minimum requirements in days and in their military training tests, they receive a bounty. That is a tax-free amount and, depending on how long one has served, it can be up to £2,000—or just under that sum. Having had their training cut off, how are members of the TA going to achieve their bounty requirements? It appears that commanding officers might have the ability simply to wipe off days and say, "There is no need to fulfil your man training days for the year," and that soldiers will only have to pass their basic military annual training tests. Those tests have already been reduced this year simply to passing a first aid test, doing one's personal fitness assessment, which consists of doing a mile-and-a-half run, press ups and sit ups, and a weapon handling test. Is that really going to be the minimum requirement for a TA soldier to get their bounty? Are we going to have TA soldiers who pass a weapon handling test, yet the first time they will get an opportunity to fire a weapon is when they finally go to the RTMC, perhaps days before they get deployed to Afghanistan? Is the Minister really suggesting that that is adequate pre-deployment training? I cannot believe for one second that he is.
	I want to focus on the one Army concept, too. We have made major advances in recent years in bringing the two parts of the Army—the TA and the regular Army—together. Now, when one goes on operations, as I am sure that the Minister has seen for himself, one cannot tell who is in the regular Army and who is in the TA. That is a fabulous achievement for the TA over a number of years. We run the risk of pulling the two sides of the Army apart as a result of this decision.
	After the reserve review, we formed some hybrid regiments. For example, my former regiment, 101 Engineer Regiment, will now have a regular headquarters, two TA squadrons and two regular squadrons. With this decision, the Ministry is basically saying to the commanding officer, "We realise that you have one regiment, but you now have two very different halves to it. You can train this half, but you cannot train that half. This half can go adventurous training, but that half cannot." How does that underpin the one Army concept? What will it do to morale in the Territorial Army when they see their regular counterparts able to train when they cannot? Does the Minister not even begin to understand what this decision is doing to separate the one Army concept?
	Let me say a couple of words on the cadets. They play a vital role in supporting future recruitment to the regular Army and Territorial Army. Only last year, the Prime Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask him to increase the size of the cadet force. How does this decision to reduce all funding for the cadet force underline the Prime Minister's request?
	I want to end on the most important point, which is the programme review for 2010. At the moment, TA soldiers face a six-month cut in their training. All they ask is for some reassurance that this cut will not continue into the next financial year. We are asking TA soldiers not to train for six months, but we might not learn until as late as 31 March whether the cut will continue into the next year. I understand from my sources in the MOD that many options are being run up, whereby these cuts will continue into the next financial year. I am not suggesting that the Minister would ever not be honest in this House, but can we have a degree of honesty when he replies about whether such cuts are being considered for next year? At the very least, will he undertake to announce before December that next year's funding for the TA will come in? That will underline to members of the Territorial Army that he values the TA and that it has a future.
	Finally, when the Minister stands up will he spare me and my colleagues in the TA the platitudes about how much he values the TA? Rather than telling me how much he values the TA and the role that we play in supporting the regular Army, will he give us some actions and decisions through which he will reverse this damaging and short-sighted announcement?

Lindsay Hoyle: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I asked the hon. Gentleman who is promoting the debate—I spoke to him earlier.

Lindsay Hoyle: I put in a proposal for an hour-and-a-half debate, which would have meant less time pressure, but, unfortunately, we have managed only to secure a half-hour debate.
	It is important that we take heed of what has been said. However, may I take the Minister a little further? The Government have moved a little on this decision, but they need to reverse the whole decision and find another £20 million to replace this budget cut. Do we really understand the damage? We have touched on the subject of keeping skills at a high standard, whether someone is working in 101 Engineer Regiment or serving on the bomb disposal squad. The same applies to medics, whose skills cannot be turned off and on to suit the whim of the Government. Those skills must be honed week in, week out, ready for deployment. We do not know how many people we will need to back up. We can envisage the role that is required, but in the end we do not have the exact numbers.
	The other thing is that many regiments are re-roling—

Lindsay Hoyle: What a strange lady.
	If the main regiments are re-roling, the TA, which backs up those regiments, should also be doing the training. Unless we are to be left with a great void, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to go to the Prime Minister, find that £20 million and reverse the decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill Rammell: I start by genuinely congratulating the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) on securing the debate, and thank him for providing me with the opportunity to address the House on what I know is an important issue of concern. I also genuinely—not platitudinously—offer my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for his own long service as a member of the Territorial Army, which I know included service on operations overseas.
	The TA and the UK reserve forces make a vital contribution to keeping our country safe—to defending our citizens, territory, interests and national security. As we set out in the strategic defence review, members of the TA are no longer held in the role that they served in during the cold war—that of direct territorial defence. They now expect to be mobilised and deployed on a range of operations in support of our defence policy overseas. Like our regular forces, they demonstrate the skills and values that place our armed forces in the top rank—supreme physical courage, commitment, excellence, application, leadership, judgment and selfless duty.
	That duty has led to the deployment of 15,000 members of the TA on operations since 2003. More than 540 members of the TA are currently serving in Afghanistan. Like our regular forces, members of the TA stand ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. Tragically, 14 Territorials have died on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I pay tribute to their heroic efforts. We will not forget the price that has been paid.
	When we have forces on the front line, both regular and reserve, putting their lives on the line for us, they have to be the priority. That is why Afghanistan comes first for defence. It is our main effort. It rightly gets first call on equipment, and first call on training and support. We are spending increasing sums from the Treasury reserve and the direct defence budget to do this. Additional spending on operations in Afghanistan has risen from £700 million three years ago to more than £3 billion this year. That is over and above the defence budget.
	We have approved more than £3.2 billion of urgent operational requirements specifically for Afghanistan. That additional spending has allowed us to more than double helicopter capacity compared with 2006, to quadruple the numbers of mine-protected Mastiff and Ridgback vehicles compared to six months ago, to increase specialised troops and equipment to target improvised explosive devices networks, and crucially, to deploy around 1,000 more troops in a little over six months, and budget for a further increase if the conditions that we have set out are met.

Bill Rammell: I emphatically understand the importance of that organic connection with the community. It is certainly not our intention to undermine or destroy it.
	I return to the point that I was making. Making every effort to support and resource our operations in Afghanistan is not only a matter of drawing on the Treasury reserve. Many parts of the core defence budget, such as recruitment and basic training, contribute as well, so we need to re-prioritise the core defence budget too. Whatever way people argue this, that inevitably means that tough choices will need to be made.
	It is a very positive sign for the future that recruitment to the Army has experienced a significant boost this year—9,450 recruits are expected to complete training this year, more than 1,000 up on last year and 1,500 more than the year before that. Bringing the Army towards full manning is part of what the main effort is all about. It will also help us to meet the harmony guidelines for our regular forces and relieve pressures brought about by Afghanistan operations. But those new recruits will cost money to pay, train and equip—extra money that cannot be drawn from the Treasury reserve for that purpose. It has to be found within existing budgets, so there is a hard choice to make.
	We have asked each area of defence to look at uncommitted budgets in this year and to prioritise in the context of Afghanistan. The Chief of the General Staff came forward with proposals from the Army to help to bring the budget into balance in the light of that recent recruitment boost. After discussion, the Secretary of State endorsed that advice from the military. He did so, being clear that we will not allow any risk to the Afghanistan campaign in the future to materialise. That is at the heart of what it means for Afghanistan to be the main effort, and we make no apologies for moving resources in that direction.

Bill Rammell: No, I have to make some progress.
	I shall now set out those measures as they affect the Territorial Army, as the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes has asked me to. The Army has proposed, as part of its contribution to bringing budgets towards balance this year and as a contribution to the main efforts, that it will reduce the amount spent on the Territorial Army this year which is not directly related to Afghanistan. That initial proposal was to suspend the remainder of this financial year's TA activity that was not directly supporting operations, contributing £20 million to a total saving of £43 million in the TA budget this year.
	In saying that, let me be crystal clear: no individual deploying to Afghanistan does so without the required training; no TA soldier will be deployed on operations unless the Army is satisfied that he is properly trained and prepared; and there is emphatically not a cut to pre-deployment training. The training needs of TA personnel deploying to Afghanistan will continue to be individually assessed, and each will receive the training that they need before they begin the pre-deployment training that is specific to the operation upon which they embark. For reserves, that training is then validated at the reserves training and mobilisation centre and by the Permanent Joint Headquarters, before individuals are mobilised to join a formed unit for an extended period of collective training ahead of operations.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have listened to the comments and representations that hon. Members have made in recent days. Although we have always been clear during the debate that those deploying to Afghanistan will get all the training that they need, we do understand the concerns that have been expressed about the effect on those who are not due to deploy in the foreseeable future. I of course understand why people might be concerned about the longer-term effect on capability if the current situation continues indefinitely.
	In the short term, the Army is clear that the measures can be managed without impact on support for current operations. But, we are all clear that we will not allow any longer-term risks to materialise. We recognise that in some quarters there are genuine concerns that, if the habit of TA activity is lost for a few months, some of our volunteers may drift away and never return; and we understand that the TA is more likely to come through this difficult period in good order if its members are encouraged to come together regularly, even if not as frequently as in the past.
	We will therefore ensure some degree of continuity for those who are not deploying to Afghanistan in the next few months. Taking all that into account, we announced today—I did so earlier today in the Chamber—a small adjustment to the measures that we proposed. We are reducing the saving by £2.5 million to fund one training evening per month for all TA personnel from now until April 2010. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that change, because it is one that he called for.

Bill Rammell: It is for everyone concerned. As I said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the measure, because I know it is one that he called for. How individual TA units arrange it will be a decision for their chain of command.
	Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman, as he has raised this point, that we do not propose to close any TA centres. However, I must emphasise that the remainder of the savings measures are unavoidably necessary in these challenging times and to focus spending on Afghanistan. Resources are tight, and I am sure the House agrees that we have to ensure that our mission in Afghanistan gets all the support it needs.
	As I have said, the precise training that is affected is being determined locally, depending on local circumstances and priorities, and commanding officers have some flexibility in the implementation of savings measures. All new recruits to the TA will continue to receive phase 1 training. TA personnel who have not yet qualified for their annual training bounty will have the opportunity to undertake training to enable them to qualify. The hon. Gentleman's cursory description of the training that will be available to get that bounty did not bear any relationship to what we propose.
	I sympathise entirely if those restrictions cause local TA units to review commitments that they have made to public events. I am told that many units are deciding to honour, without payment, commitments such as providing support for remembrance activities, and they are to be applauded for doing so. I hope that as many TA bands as possible will feel able to continue supporting local remembrance events.
	We are still working on the full details of the savings measures, but at this stage we do not anticipate that any TA centres will close as a result. We are very keen to maintain links with the employers whose invaluable support is so crucial to the TA. Liaison with current and prospective employers will continue via regional reserve forces, cadet associations and the Government's Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers initiatives. Some regional TA activities will be cancelled, but that will have little, if any, effect on relations with employers. I realise that reductions in normal activity are disappointing for TA members. However, I hope and believe that the majority will understand the reasons behind those reductions and the exceptional circumstances in which they are being applied.
	On communication, I repeat the regret that I expressed earlier today that members of the TA found out about changes through the press, rather than through the chain of command. There has been an historic practice in the armed forces, under successive Governments, that such changes are communicated and cascaded through the chain of command. In this day and age—in the media environment in which we operate, with the 24/7 media—I do not think that is good enough. We need to reflect on that issue and to make improvements. I also repeat the commitment that I gave earlier today that the changes will be kept under active review.
	Let me conclude by giving a commitment. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said about reassurance for the future, and I think it is incumbent on us in the Ministry of Defence to reach conclusions on the budget for 2010 as quickly as possible in order to give that reassurance. The TA is doing an incredibly good job on all our behalves, and we should support that. I hope that the change that I have announced today will be welcomed right across the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.